NEW JERSEY | Liberty World Trade Center -TTII| 1,515 FT / 462 M | 115 FLOORS | VISION [Archive] - Page 4

PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum. For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : NEW JERSEY | Liberty World Trade Center -TTII| 1,515 FT / 462 M | 115 FLOORS | VISION

Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

CGII

Aug 23, 2009, 11:26 PM

Some tenants at the original WTC don't want to come back because of the Freedom Tower plan and costs.

Name one tenant that has declined renting in the WTC because of its 'plan and cost' but that has come forward and said 'we will rent in Twin Towers II.'

Dac150

Aug 23, 2009, 11:29 PM

Is that why this plan has been shown on MSNBC multiple times with the architect?

And that means what exactly? Since when is MSNBC such an influential and powerful force in moving forward real estate developments?

You keep mentioning things like this as if they should take our breaths away, yet what real substance comes from it? :shrug:

J.M.

Aug 23, 2009, 11:38 PM

HAHAHA, "NEW YORK | Twin Towers II | 1,515 FT / 426 M | 115 FLOORS | DELUSION", thats just gold!

So this topic has gone lovely hasnt it. We have the people on the Twin Towers side, bickering about their love for icons of a World before hell, and the people on the side of the current project in which some of you guys have common sense, which isnt the common is this, like really, read some of this. But honestly sure the Twin Towers were iconic and Id love to see them rebuilt, but my common sense holds grip on the current project and I also love the current plan. You Twin Tower II supporters should honestly present some more information besides how much you support the plan, as in im not against you guys or the others, but maybe you guys will have some more respect when you present something with reasonable information. So bicker more and more, ill try to comment when its the appropraite times but seriously, this is just nuts.

JDRCRASH

Aug 23, 2009, 11:45 PM

Damn...16 pages? :sly:

@KyleDavid13

Aug 23, 2009, 11:49 PM

Okay let me clear up these multiple posts of pure opinions.

No the only thing that has to be removed at the WTC is the freedom tower. IF you think so, then you obviously don't care about the WTC. The site, including the memorial and Tower 4 are at street level, and Silverstein is getting his money back from the PA for rent he unjustly paid. Looking at the memorial, the amount of space between the beams is too wide for the original towers' exterior wall, and they would have to be redesigned. Plus, it was stated that the memorial was to be built on a superblock. Explain that.

The WTC will not get rebuilt by 2037, it's a speculation, not a fact, you're confusing 1WTC with the rest of the site. The tower is expected to be done in 2013, why do you always expect something to be done in a heartbeat? That's what discourages construction. And why would you complain about something for six years and when it's finally showing signs of construction, tear it down?

It took so long to get the tower rebuilt because it had to be redesigned due to safety concerns. It's only at street level now because, if you haven't rode the PATH lately, the Freedom Tower is adjusting itself over active train tracks.

Yes the Freedom tower has only one tenant. Guess what? When the towers were built, they had NO tenants. That goes to show that the economy has an effect on the site, not the work being done. Newsflash, we're in a recession.

Do you even live in this city? How can you say no work is being done if you haven't looked at the site yet? It's no longer ground Zero, it's the WTC site. Did you even read this topic? All the things you said were already answered with facts. It's only 15 pages, it won't take long.

And don't say when the summit's over, the towers will get built, because they won't. I told you, it has to be approved by the developer and the owner, which could take years depending on their finances and their amount of reluctance to demolishing the site. Do you guys have any sense of money? WHERE is the money going to come from to do such a thing?

Why do you even bring the subject of construction up knowing quite well that you're going to get criticism? GO to the site and look for yourselves.

2013 is the target for completion but officially 2018 is the realest date. With the other towers (if built) behind it. And I said the memorial could be used in the Twin Towers II plan so that really doesn't concern us.

@KyleDavid13

Aug 23, 2009, 11:50 PM

Name one tenant that has declined renting in the WTC because of its 'plan and cost' but that has come forward and said 'we will rent in Twin Towers II.'

None have said they would rent from the Twin Towers II..they might but I haven't heard.

@KyleDavid13

Aug 23, 2009, 11:51 PM

And that means what exactly? Since when is MSNBC such an influential and powerful force in moving forward real estate developments?

You keep mentioning things like this as if they should take our breaths away, yet what real substance comes from it? :shrug:

I'm just stating that for the people who think this plan is a joke. If its a joke it wouldn't be on MSNBC is all I'm saying.

theWatusi

Aug 23, 2009, 11:53 PM

2013 is the target for completion but officially 2018 is the realest date.

Who told you that 2018 was the realest?

@KyleDavid13

Aug 23, 2009, 11:55 PM

AND I love the memorial by the Freedom Tower but can't we all agree that its ridiculous to pay admission for it!? For some 9/11 victims thats their family/friends grave. Why should us Americans and other countries suffer to pay to mourn?

CGII

Aug 23, 2009, 11:58 PM

None have said they would rent from the Twin Towers II..they might but I haven't heard.

So then how on earth can you possibly make the assumption that the Twin Towers II plan is a more economically stable development than the WTC and claim that people don't want to rent in 1 WTC? It seems clear to me (and anyone else with a reasoning faculty) that nobody wants to rent in the Twin Towers II! What have you got to say for your little project that has no economic viability?

Saying 'oh yeah, well, maybe more tenants will come to TTII than WTC if we build TTII' isn't even kindergarten level economics. Come on.

AND I love the memorial by the Freedom Tower but can't we all agree that its ridiculous to pay admission for it!? For some 9/11 victims thats their family/friends grave. Why should us Americans and other countries suffer to pay to mourn?

The memorial is free and public. You will not be charged to pay admission for it. You've been brainwashed by your cause.

Mercedes Benzene

Aug 23, 2009, 11:59 PM

I'm just stating that for the people who think this plan is a joke. If its a joke it wouldn't be on MSNBC is all I'm saying.
Yeah. We all know how unbiased cable news can be. :rolleyes:

And just because it was mentioned on the news does not mean that it is a legitimate project. It's just a "vision." 1WTC is being built, and there's no stopping a small faction of radicals that want to believe they're right.

Sorry to tell you, you're wrong; you're just making jackasses of yourselves by demonstrating your architectural and developmental incompetence.

Dac150

Aug 24, 2009, 12:03 AM

If its a joke it wouldn't be on MSNBC is all I'm saying.

:lmao:

Stu

Aug 24, 2009, 12:08 AM

2013 is the target for completion but officially 2018 is the realest date.

Please do not use terms like "officially" when discussing your nonsensical fantasies. It's an offense to the modest dignity of reality.

@KyleDavid13

Aug 24, 2009, 12:35 AM

Who told you that 2018 was the realest?

I've heard from different resources and it seems probable anyway.

theWatusi

Aug 24, 2009, 12:36 AM

I've heard from different resources and it seems probable anyway.

Which resources? Have a link? Why is that probable to you?

@KyleDavid13

Aug 24, 2009, 12:38 AM

BStyles

Aug 24, 2009, 12:38 AM

@KyleDavid13

Aug 24, 2009, 12:39 AM

Which resources? Have a link? Why is that probable to you?

The construction right now. Its 100 feet above street level now or so, correct? They've been working on it since '06.

theWatusi

Aug 24, 2009, 12:41 AM

^ so how do you extrapolate 2018 from that?

@KyleDavid13

Aug 24, 2009, 12:42 AM

2013 Is the official date for the completion and opening of this tower. Rely on that SSP and the PA's website say, not the rumors.

I think delusional really defines this tread. I was looking for more of a lock though, but this really brightened my day.:D

And I hope it is complete by 2013 if construction continues. I'll still love the WTC either way..don't get me wrong.

John Hinds

Aug 24, 2009, 12:43 AM

J.M.

Aug 24, 2009, 1:01 AM

Have you got a location for this land in New Jersey where they are going to be built?

Twin Towers in New Jersey, is this is called a solution, WTH?? Jeesh lets just build two plans in one, the wtc now on the first level and Twin Tower II plan right above! like really, just no Twin Towers in New Jersey. You know... i'm starting to have a change of heart...

Dac150

Aug 24, 2009, 1:06 AM

Now we’re talking about New Jersey? What’s next, the Pocono Mountains?

breathesgelatin

Aug 24, 2009, 2:31 AM

It really doesn't matter if the Twin Towers II is built at Ground Zero or so laugh all you want because if they're not built at the WTC site they will be in Jersey City, New Jersey. Kenneth Gardner (Twin Towers II designer) and other great architects around the world will fill out the skyline in NJ for the Twin Towers. The architect already has property being held in NJ that could be used.

1. Kenneth Gardner is not an architect. He is certainly not a great architect. If you google Rem Koolhaas, I. M. Pei, and all those other folks, you get links to A) their architectural firms and B) their wikipedia pages. He has neither. What other significant world projects has Mr. Gardner been the lead architect on?

2. I'm up for towers in New Jersey!!! :tup:

3. What do you mean by the property is "being held"??

morelight

Aug 24, 2009, 4:08 AM

Dear Plinko,

Thank you for your curiosity and civility. You want to know what our endgame is. That's easy: We believe the current project is the utterly corrupt result of an utterly corrupt process that is rapidly breaking down, no matter what spin officials put on it. It is no surprise that an agency with the vast public resources of the Port Authority is able to make things happen, but that does not make it progress. And just because it has worked so far does not mean it will or should ultimately succeed. The NYU Brennan Center for Justice has repeatedly published the findings that NY State government is the most dysfunctional in the nation, most recently just this month, so our position is that America's answer to 9/11 should not be a mere byproduct of that sorry condition or be limited to what New York and New Jersey can afford.

We believe that if the American public knew where things stand, how they got to this point, and what our options are they would strongly reject the current project. To find a way to get vital information to the people while it can still result in the best possible World Trade Center, in spite of all the political efforts to keep them in the dark, is certainly very difficult but not daunting. We hope that the September 9th "Kitchen Table Summit" will yield the kind of common sense that has been lacking so far, and will make for an effective YouTube video. But that is only one of the avenues we intend to explore.

I scanned the thread to try to answer some of what people had to say, but I soon realized there was no point. I don't take the put downs personally, since at 57 I am probably more than twice the age of most of you. But it is too bad that the ideal of disagreeing without being disagreeable seems to be receding into the past, because I think that threatens us more than any foreign enemy ever could.

Those of you who think that the current plan is the best possible World Trade Center -- or that we have come as close as we ever will -- should have no objection to people getting a better look at where we are and where we could be. We are building for the centuries, telegraphing who we are to the ages, and in a country where billions of dollars are squandered on a daily basis, the only price tag worth considering at the World Trade Center is the price our fellow citizens paid on 9/11. You may think that the current plan and the way it is being imposed on the country is worthy of that price, but I disagree and so would millions of other Americans if it were put to them. There is no reason to be scornful of that.

It was no surprise to read the comment that was trying to make this into a right-wing issue, but that won't stick. It was a Republican Governor, a Republican President, and two Republican Mayors who primarily subverted the natural course of rebuilding -- and the conservative as well as the liberal media that allowed it to happen. But this is as post-political as you can get. It is not clear why so many of you are untroubled by a skyline that would automatically announce "Al Qaeda Was Here" and can accept a place of mass murder as the right place for an architectural beauty pageant. But, please respect your fellow Americans who are deeply troubled by that, instead of impugning their integrity and judgment. A comment on the TTA petition just yesterday said that "...To put up stronger towers would bring a light back in my heart and others. This is for us, not the government." I've read enough of this thread to know how snide some of you are about lapses in presentation, but those are less damaging to our country than lapses of good will. I certainly respect the fact that some of you think seeing Twin Towers rise would be disturbing -- but don't you know how differently most people see it? That's where democracy comes in -- we are meant to discuss and persuade, not rant and distort.

You all want to know who the experts are who think our plan is better -- much better. But all the anonymous online bravado in the world can't change the fact that people cannot be expected to put their careers in a shredder and we can't blame them. Look at how Trump got mugged by the press in 2005. It didn't matter that polls showed that most Americans agreed with what he was saying. His character and motives had to be ridiculed. That's how things are done these days. Look at all the nasty things I've read here about Ken, but I know first-hand how much this plan has impressed some world-class authorities. Still, It's curious that Nixon's whole presidency was undermined by the anonymous leaks of "Deep Throat" -- and that "confidential sources" are a common feature of today's journalism -- but our information is rejected as unreliable. It's still true.

Instead of being so concerned with who our unnamed supporters are, ask yourselves what we were doing in Christopher Ward's office last September in the first place. When was the last time anyone in this thread was there? Don't you wonder why Ken Gardner, Richard Hughes, and I all came away thinking that the head of the Port Authority was sincere when he said that what we presented deserved to be looked into and that we would get a prompt reply? He could have just said, "sorry -- no way." Apparently, someone changed his mind for him. But what kind of pressure would cause the head of the Port Authority to renege on his word? What was presented to him wasn't a 20th-century design for a 21st-century site. And it didn't rest on the images of a plastic model that imperfectly represents a sublime improvement on the current plan. It was a fully developed concept that had a clear transition path and it was his duty to establish whether or not it was feasible before making the tremendous investment of the public's money that he has made since then. He may come to regret his reckless actions. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, the idea that the public has no say here is lame. Silverstein's contract called for him to rebuild the Towers if they were ever destroyed. His legal rights are not and never were superior to the public's legal rights. He had a right to comparable space in comparable buildings, period. If he had had the character and vision to insist on that provision, he would be open for business today. Instead he wants to extort more public funds after all the free rent he has enjoyed over the past year at the public's expense. But, as the Mayor pointed out earlier this year, he "does not have a lot of skin in the game."

The Port Authority recognized and pledged to protect the public's investment when the Silverstein leases were announced. It was Pataki's duty to protect those rights by pursuing a convergence of interests. He never even tried. If the Governor could have gotten away with what he did by executive order he would have. But it exceeded his authority and would have resulted in a massive public outcry, so he had to stage an elaborate charade that eventually resulted in two semi-finalists. And then, as he admitted on TV in February of this year, he and Mayor Bloomberg overruled the THINK design because they thought it was "just terrible." So much for the "open and inclusive" process. But who on this forum doubts that if the LMDC's own preference for THINK had been chosen instead, it would have evolved as the Libeskind plan evolved, and we would have the next generation of Twin Towers today?

Given the current plan, would any of you suggest that the "progress" on the Freedom Tower would have been possible without the GSA leases? So how can the public have no say? Any other building with only one tenant would be cancelled as a failure, but for some reason it is a failure we should pay for. It is being built with public money and underwritten by public money, so why shouldn't that be discussed? What kind of country do we want this to be?

We told Mr. Ward a year ago, before he put the current project on steroids, about a plan that for the $3+ billion budgeted for the Freedom Tower, the $3++ billion for the transit hub, the $800 million public funds to 4WTC (to construct a building fully subsidized with inflated public sector rents,) plus Westfield's $1.5 billion stumps, would give us a Twin Towered mixed-use complex with a predictable trajectory that would arguably be a much more attractive investment for half of the $20 billion and counting that they are approaching now. The cost of the transition is climbing all the time, but whether or not the public wants to make the transition should be their call because it is their money and their country. The public's money is deeply invested and nothing is going forward without more of it. And, whether you are willing to accept it or not, most people if given a choice today would say they want new Twin Towers. So why not just take a public canvas of who would want to be a tenant in new Twin Towers? Then we wouldn't have to speculate about it. And if it has the marketing advantage we expect it does, that would have to be considered.

So where did all the manipulation leave us? With a building that is encased in twenty stories of concrete because it is positioned in the worst possible place on the site, another tower that has only government tenants and no money for the other towers. And an environmentally retrograde memorial that in the roar of the cascading waterfalls will perpetuate the sound of the crashing towers. How did the memorial guidelines that called for a place of quiet somehow produced a place where people will have to shout at each other to be heard and that will cost in the neighborhood of $50 million dollars a year to run? And then they wonder why the didn't attract any interest of private tenants. We could have the world's largest carillon of orchestral bells instead of the folly of the largest manmade waterfalls in the world, which is emblematic of all the questionable decisions that have been made -- not the least of which is the transit hub hubris that Steve Cuozzo has nailed so convincingly. But if the media had simply done its job we wouldn't be here now. If they had simply informed instead of tailored the news, people would have rallied, as they do with all the other issues of the day that get the spotlight.

So we are very clearly on solid ground in calling for an independent study before another public dime gets committed. And are confident that 'Twin Towers II" plan would stand up to the scrutiny and make more sense at every level. I appreciate any civility this point of view has been shown. If just one person will process what I have had to say on the merits instead of reflexively disagreeing, it will be worth my time. I have a lot of work to do between now and September 9th, but if anyone wants to contact me at mldonovan@twintowersalliance.com I will respond as able.

Post Script- I just noticed that "Delusion" was added to the title for this thread. What would make someone feel it is necessary to label other people's efforts like that?

CGII

Aug 24, 2009, 5:27 AM

morelight:

I took the time to read through your very articulate response, and am dissappointed that it offered none of the answers we are looking for from your camp. You, along with every other TTII supporter I've read here, supports this project from a perspective of taste, not of rationality. And in the moments of your argument where there is rationality, it is vacuum based rationality, or as to say, the reasoning is sound if the assumption is made that many many more assumptions are made. All I hear from anyone is 'I want the twin towers back because I think they look better and some anonymous talking head told me it would be so much better than what scores of trained professionals have produced.'

Claiming that your professional sources do not wish to speak on account of preservation of their reputations speaks volumes about your project. Have you considered why these professionals' repuatations might be at stake for supporting this project? Because according to you, this project has widespread, even majourity support from the public. Why would a professional choose not to associate with such an incredibly popular, realistic potential proposal? It's either because the proposal is ridiculous, or your professionals are.
In the meantime, using that as an excuse to mislead and badger the public is totally unacceptable. If the TTII is really a project geared towards the public, why don't they deserve all the information and answers regarding it? It's total deception of the very people you are supposedly trying to honour by building this massive gesture! We deserve the information. No excuses.

I am not frustrated by those who present their opinions of taste; I am frustrated by those who believe that
a. their opinions are the only opinions
b. they are qualified to talk as professionals
c. are unable to approach pragmatic reasoning and
d. are unable to accept the fact that after billions and billions of dollars and 8 years of round the clock labour the new, non Twin Towers World Trade Center is going to happen and there is nothing you can do about except make it go faster or slower. 'offer an alternative design' is not an option at this stage, and channels your energy into the 'make it go slower' option.

If you have an opinion, fine, but it's done. It's over. Your 'facts' don't add up and you don't have credible sources to back them up. Your plans are criticized by professional architects and engineers, and, at the end of the day, Silverstein's WTC is happening, not the TTII. And if you really believe in this whole 'the TTII is more respectful of the families because it will be done faster' nonsense, why don't you channel your energy into garnering support for the actual, under construction, agreed upon memorial? Discarding the current plans in favour of your own cannot expedite the process, regardless of how foolishly fast you think you can do it, and no amount of energy suffice a bomb explosion can possibly derail the completion of the aforementioned memorial. So why don't you quit pretending you are working for the families and put your money where your mouth is?

breathesgelatin

Aug 24, 2009, 7:30 AM

The NYU Brennan Center for Justice has repeatedly published the findings that NY State government is the most dysfunctional in the nation, most recently just this month, so our position is that America's answer to 9/11 should not be a mere byproduct of that sorry condition or be limited to what New York and New Jersey can afford.

I thought your claim was that the TTII was the more affordable option and thus more attractive?? Confused about that.

But it is too bad that the ideal of disagreeing without being disagreeable seems to be receding into the past, because I think that threatens us more than any foreign enemy ever could.

I really don't think that this forum is comparable in importance to American safety as national security issues. And why bring up foreign enemies at this juncture???? More on that in a moment.

Those of you who think that the current plan is the best possible World Trade Center -- or that we have come as close as we ever will -- should have no objection to people getting a better look at where we are and where we could be. We are building for the centuries, telegraphing who we are to the ages, and in a country where billions of dollars are squandered on a daily basis, the only price tag worth considering at the World Trade Center is the price our fellow citizens paid on 9/11. You may think that the current plan and the way it is being imposed on the country is worthy of that price, but I disagree and so would millions of other Americans if it were put to them. There is no reason to be scornful of that.

If it is really about the victims of 9/11, it is really about the victims of 9/11. Not about specific buildings. That is where it breaks down for me. I just don't understand how respecting the victims translates to "we must rebuild the twin towers." I really wish that someone could explain that, because it doesn't logically follow.

Actually, much of what the TTII proponents want seems to me to NOT be about the victims. They seem instead to be worried about is sticking it to the terrorists, or what the population really wants - which, truthfully, you don't know. I don't think it's right for you to assume that the public will agree with you after hearing your information. You have no way of knowing that. More on that later too.

It is not clear why so many of you are untroubled by a skyline that would automatically announce "Al Qaeda Was Here" and can accept a place of mass murder as the right place for an architectural beauty pageant. But, please respect your fellow Americans who are deeply troubled by that, instead of impugning their integrity and judgment. A comment on the TTA petition just yesterday said that "...To put up stronger towers would bring a light back in my heart and others. This is for us, not the government." I've read enough of this thread to know how snide some of you are about lapses in presentation, but those are less damaging to our country than lapses of good will. I certainly respect the fact that some of you think seeing Twin Towers rise would be disturbing -- but don't you know how differently most people see it? That's where democracy comes in -- we are meant to discuss and persuade, not rant and distort.

This also doesn't make sense to me. How do new buildings announce "Al Qaeda Was Here"? Buildings don't automatically announce anything. You admit the buildings are beautiful. Aren't things like beauty, hope, etc., a fitting tribute to the victims?

This is the part that scares me - I just think that hidden behind all of this somehow is jingoism, xenophobia, etc. Think of that guy on the video and his racist remarks. I wonder if a lot of what's driving people to the TTII plan is the idea that we have to "stick it to the terrorists". If that's what people want, it scares me. And besides, as I said, you have no real way of knowing how most people see it.

You all want to know who the experts are who think our plan is better -- much better. But all the anonymous online bravado in the world can't change the fact that people cannot be expected to put their careers in a shredder and we can't blame them. Look at how Trump got mugged by the press in 2005. It didn't matter that polls showed that most Americans agreed with what he was saying. His character and motives had to be ridiculed. That's how things are done these days. Look at all the nasty things I've read here about Ken, but I know first-hand how much this plan has impressed some world-class authorities. Still, It's curious that Nixon's whole presidency was undermined by the anonymous leaks of "Deep Throat" -- and that "confidential sources" are a common feature of today's journalism -- but our information is rejected as unreliable. It's still true.

Wha???? comparing this to Deep Throat?? This is something totally different. In that case, Deep Throat's claims were supported by overwhelming evidence and facts. Nixon's lies began to break down under examination. Here, you are telling us to accept your anonymous sources, but not providing any accompanying evidence that you plan will work or is realistic. You're not even giving us actual quotes from your sources, just claiming that you have some.

Instead of being so concerned with who our unnamed supporters are, ask yourselves what we were doing in Christopher Ward's office last September in the first place. When was the last time anyone in this thread was there? Don't you wonder why Ken Gardner, Richard Hughes, and I all came away thinking that the head of the Port Authority was sincere when he said that what we presented deserved to be looked into and that we would get a prompt reply? He could have just said, "sorry -- no way." Apparently, someone changed his mind for him. But what kind of pressure would cause the head of the Port Authority to renege on his word? What was presented to him wasn't a 20th-century design for a 21st-century site. And it didn't rest on the images of a plastic model that imperfectly represents a sublime improvement on the current plan. It was a fully developed concept that had a clear transition path and it was his duty to establish whether or not it was feasible before making the tremendous investment of the public's money that he has made since then. He may come to regret his reckless actions. Time will tell.

Maybe the head of the PA had to be polite. It sounds to me like he told you a white lie.

Meanwhile, the idea that the public has no say here is lame. Silverstein's contract called for him to rebuild the Towers if they were ever destroyed. His legal rights are not and never were superior to the public's legal rights. He had a right to comparable space in comparable buildings, period. If he had had the character and vision to insist on that provision, he would be open for business today. Instead he wants to extort more public funds after all the free rent he has enjoyed over the past year at the public's expense. But, as the Mayor pointed out earlier this year, he "does not have a lot of skin in the game."

The idea that the public has no say may be lame. But what rights does the public have to insist on having a say? Could you please explain these legal rights?

The Port Authority recognized and pledged to protect the public's investment when the Silverstein leases were announced. It was Pataki's duty to protect those rights by pursuing a convergence of interests. He never even tried. If the Governor could have gotten away with what he did by executive order he would have. But it exceeded his authority and would have resulted in a massive public outcry, so he had to stage an elaborate charade that eventually resulted in two semi-finalists. And then, as he admitted on TV in February of this year, he and Mayor Bloomberg overruled the THINK design because they thought it was "just terrible." So much for the "open and inclusive" process. But who on this forum doubts that if the LMDC's own preference for THINK had been chosen instead, it would have evolved as the Libeskind plan evolved, and we would have the next generation of Twin Towers today?

Well, the LMDC doesn't exactly = the public, anyway. Which person or entity represented the public? Which design represented the public? It's not like Pataki overruled a national referendum or something.

Given the current plan, would any of you suggest that the "progress" on the Freedom Tower would have been possible without the GSA leases? So how can the public have no say? Any other building with only one tenant would be cancelled as a failure, but for some reason it is a failure we should pay for. It is being built with public money and underwritten by public money, so why shouldn't that be discussed? What kind of country do we want this to be?

Oh come on, now. Many buildings have been built with few tenants, including the original WTC, which also had primarily governmental tenants to begin with. And you have no way of knowing if TTII would have more tenants. I doubt that companies are primarily worried about the architecture of the building they're leasing. They're more worried about their bottom line. We're in a RECESSION. And besides, I thought you claimed earlier this wasn't about what we could afford.

We told Mr. Ward a year ago, before he put the current project on steroids, about a plan that for the $3+ billion budgeted for the Freedom Tower, the $3++ billion for the transit hub, the $800 million public funds to 4WTC (to construct a building fully subsidized with inflated public sector rents,) plus Westfield's $1.5 billion stumps, would give us a Twin Towered mixed-use complex with a predictable trajectory that would arguably be a much more attractive investment for half of the $20 billion and counting that they are approaching now. The cost of the transition is climbing all the time, but whether or not the public wants to make the transition should be their call because it is their money and their country. The public's money is deeply invested and nothing is going forward without more of it. And, whether you are willing to accept it or not, most people if given a choice today would say they want new Twin Towers. So why not just take a public canvas of who would want to be a tenant in new Twin Towers? Then we wouldn't have to speculate about it. And if it has the marketing advantage we expect it does, that would have to be considered.

Again, you do not know what most people want. You've presented us with no evidence in that regard. You *expect* potential tenants would like TTII more. Well, I may expect they would like Freedom tower more, but that doesn't make it so. I'm still not understanding your claim that the public gets to vote on this. The public doesn't get to vote on everything that is done with their money. That is the whole concept of representation.

So where did all the manipulation leave us? With a building that is encased in twenty stories of concrete because it is positioned in the worst possible place on the site, another tower that has only government tenants and no money for the other towers. And an environmentally retrograde memorial that in the roar of the cascading waterfalls will perpetuate the sound of the crashing towers. How did the memorial guidelines that called for a place of quiet somehow produced a place where people will have to shout at each other to be heard and that will cost in the neighborhood of $50 million dollars a year to run? And then they wonder why the didn't attract any interest of private tenants. We could have the world's largest carillon of orchestral bells instead of the folly of the largest manmade waterfalls in the world, which is emblematic of all the questionable decisions that have been made -- not the least of which is the transit hub hubris that Steve Cuozzo has nailed so convincingly. But if the media had simply done its job we wouldn't be here now. If they had simply informed instead of tailored the news, people would have rallied, as they do with all the other issues of the day that get the spotlight.

As CGII has pointed out, most of this is a matter of taste also. I very much like many things about the new plan - the design of several buildings and the end of the superblock to begin with. I agree with you, actually, that the memorial leaves something to be desired and particularly that it is wasteful of money and resources. But... that is a matter of taste. My opinion is not the last word, nor is yours.

And what might the media have done to remedy the situation? By the way, it's foolish to claim that the media ever simply "informs". Or that they could ever simply "inform". ALL news is tailored. EVERYONE and EVERYTHING has a bias.

So we are very clearly on solid ground in calling for an independent study before another public dime gets committed. And are confident that 'Twin Towers II" plan would stand up to the scrutiny and make more sense at every level. I appreciate any civility this point of view has been shown. If just one person will process what I have had to say on the merits instead of reflexively disagreeing, it will be worth my time. I have a lot of work to do between now and September 9th, but if anyone wants to contact me at mldonovan@twintowersalliance.com I will respond as able.

You haven't made clear to me at all that you are on solid ground. You've convinced me that yes, there is a lot of sleaze surrounding the decision-making in this process. If I believe you about your meeting, I also believe that the head of the Port Authority lied to you. Neither of those is that stunning to me. I don't see the point in doing an independent study when we are actually building now. You may regret the decision, but it truly can't be changed at this point. I am not reflexively disagreeing. As I said, I agree with some of your criticisms. I am just not buying that the public gets to make this decision or that if they did that they would make the best decision. I am also not buying that this is some story of mass corruption and TEH EBULLLLL that we have to sit around to spend more money investigating.

And more than anything, I am deeply disturbed that much of this seems to based on the regressive notion of "sending a message to the terrorists" - whatever that means and as if they would even care. You claim that it is about the victims but offer no real reason why TTII honors their memory more than the current plan. The only reason I see is that we have to restore what was there before so there will not be any change to our skyline saying "Al Qaeda was here." Now that I think of it, that disturbs me even more. That's bad history and bad commemoration. Something DID happen. Let's not pretend that it didn't. Let's center this around beauty, hope, rebirth - not making sure we present static face to the world.

M II A II R II K

Aug 24, 2009, 2:18 PM

Even if the case can be made that it was a corrupt process and sway enough public opinion against the Freedom Tower, it's a little too late now with the amount of work done at that site.

And plus would public opinion even influence their decision anyway.

Dac150

Aug 24, 2009, 2:43 PM

If the Port Authority and Larry Silverstein wanted something along the lines of your organizations proposal than they would’ve looked into that option a while ago. They didn’t have interest in it then and they certainly won’t now, especially given the work that has already been done.

Not to mention the billions of dollars that are already invested into this project. Do you really expect them to take such a gigantic loss and abandon all that investment?

If so, then where is all the new capital being generated from? Who are these eager investors you claim are out there who at a drop of the hat will throw down all that money?

The more I read into this and understand these explanations, this seems more along the lines to me as an ambitious childhood fantasy which has no real sense or means of practicality.

JDRCRASH

Aug 24, 2009, 2:54 PM

Believe me when I say this, Kyle David: Use facts to back up your claims...

MolsonExport

Aug 24, 2009, 4:22 PM

In other news...:D

CGII

Aug 24, 2009, 4:47 PM

I think now is as good a time as ever to bring up the actual memorial.

The actual memorial is going to be seriously powerful and beautiful. It's success lies in its simplicity; the designer creates a serene setting through symbolism, and makes a poignant statement by representing the WTC footprints as voids. The waterfalls act both to engage these voids and to dampen the noise of traffic along West St (one of the busiest streets on the island). Beyond the footprints, the site is carefully landscaped to allow a considerable volume of people (given the number of expected tourists and business neighbours that would frequent the site) but keeps it an intimate setting by providing scores of thick trees.

In addition, I have no idea where you can claim the memorial is 'environmentally retrograde' when it is currently pending LEED Gold certification.
http://www.national911memorial.org/img/memorial/aerial1.jpg
national911memorial.org
http://www.national911memorial.org/img/memorial/glade01640x304.jpg
national911memorial.org
http://www.national911memorial.org/images/content/photos/large_183939.jpg
national911memorial.org
http://www.national911memorial.org/images/content/photos/large_183941.jpg
national911memorial.org
http://www.national911memorial.org/images/content/photos/large_183942.jpg
national911memorial.org
http://www.national911memorial.org/images/content/photos/large_183943.jpg
national911memorial.org

Meanwhile, this is what is proposed under the Twin Towers II fantasy:
http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z300/rhoads2000/model2.jpg
Aleks
http://www.triroc.com/wtc/pix/footp.poster.jpg
triroc.com
http://www.wtc2011.com/South_Memorial2.jpg
wtc2011.com
http://www.wtc2011.com/Liberty%20Bells.jpg
wtc2011.com

If I don't say so myself, this is a piteous, third rate memorial.

1. It's poorly laid out. In the site plan, the memorial just seems to be there because that's where the footprints are. In some variations of the design, a lowrise building is placed between the footprints and which (even in the model!) clearly casts shadows over the footprints!
2. The design of the memorial spaces themselves are awful. They do not engage the user at all. In fact, it appears the memorial is placed above street level, and discourages entry. Didn't the 60s teach you anything about plaza design? (I'll rescind that comment now, actually, since the WTC2011 group is actually trying to replicate a design from the 60s). Not to mention that what the footprint contains are just tacky premade memorial type things. 'Oh yeah, it's a memorial, it should have, like, flags and sculptures and stuff.' Circulation through the memorial is completely unaddressed with this design, and what's more, it's boring! Yeah, there's a big open plaza and yeah there's some flags, but where do people go if they want to sit down someplace quiet? What about the thousands of office workers who will just want a nice park space to enjoy their lunch or breaks?
3. The ruins are rebuilt. I mean, really, the ruins are rebuilt. Not only do you want to rebuild the towers, but you want to rebuild the ruins? Not only is this incredibly insensitive, perhaps even scarring, but what in the hell is the point of rebuilding ruins? If the ruins are rebuilt, they would have no significance whatsoever as ruins; I can understand a movement to preserve the ruins if they still existed (hell, I might even be in that camp if they were still around) but they were quickly dismantled and are now gone. The ruins are important only if they are real. These replica ruins only manage to agitate old wounds, not honour something lost.

Good memorials are subtle. The Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, for example, is celebrated for it's power and simplicity (as a sidenote, Maya Lin, the designer, served on the committee that chose the current memorial design). That memorial would've been a joke if it had been a replica of a Vietnamese fishing village with sculptures of Americans and Viet Congs duking it out. It would've been ugly and tasteless. But it seems that ugly and tasteless are what the TTII supporters are going for here. Please please please explain to me how the TTII memorial is more appropriate than the real one.

TwinTowersForever

Aug 24, 2009, 5:14 PM

Dac150

Aug 24, 2009, 5:15 PM

It’s really such a dreadful memorial design, plus surrounded directly by those imposing (shadow casting) structures makes it feel uninviting and insensitive for the purpose in which it is serving. It looks as if neither consideration nor heart went into the design; more just there for the sake of being there.

Plus, what is with the designs for the low rises? They look like a cross between an office park in Fort Worth Texas and a retirement condo complex in Boca Raton Florida. Simply unfitting for the environment.

To me it seems as if all thought selfishly went into designing the two main towers with little to no regard into the remainder of the complex, and most importantly the memorial.

I view it as a ‘class A’ despicable design.

vid

Aug 24, 2009, 6:37 PM

You all want to know who the experts are who think our plan is better -- much better. But all the anonymous online bravado in the world can't change the fact that people cannot be expected to put their careers in a shredder and we can't blame them.

Are you saying your "experts" fear us: the small, vocal minority; or that if the "experts" who support your plan come out of the closet they'll be laughed at by their peers for supporting such an absurd proposal?

Its above ground and would be cheap to maintain.

Yes, because when we're memorializing one of the most traumatic events in the history of the Americas, an event that greatly changed the world, maintenance costs are the number one priority!

And I want to echo Dac's sentiment on the low rise buildings:

http://www.triroc.com/wtc/pix/footp.poster.jpg

They have no connection to the site. They lack context. They're just a collection of a few architectural features that are in vogue with suburban office parks. They look nothing like the original low rise buildings at the site, which were an important part of the sites overall look and feel. Even the memorial and its placement doesn't seem to take those things into account. It's just a collection of stuff that you feel is symbolic, but it has no real meaning.

Rebuilding the ruins? That's like memorializing someone's house fire by plopping the charred remains of a couch on their lawn.

John Hinds

Aug 24, 2009, 6:46 PM

Its above ground and would be cheap to maintain.

Yes, because that's the best way to judge memorials isn't it, on price.
If price is your only issue why not build it out of popsicle sticks.

We're not talking about buying a budget car here, we're talking about building a memorial to the victims of a 9/11 terrorist attacks.

theWatusi

Aug 24, 2009, 7:12 PM

Rebuilding the ruins? That's like memorializing someone's house fire by plopping the charred remains of a couch on their lawn.

:haha: :tup:

Dac150

Aug 24, 2009, 8:24 PM

I just spent a few minutes analyzing and reviewing that layout and it seems both off and awkward. Some of the sidewalks alone look as if they are only a few feet wide. Point is this model doesn’t seem very accurate in correlation to the actually site, nor safe for that matter.

Zapatan

Aug 24, 2009, 8:41 PM

This thread is absolutely hilarious, I thought you had to be at least 13 to post here?

TwinTowersForever

Aug 24, 2009, 8:48 PM

Scroll to the bottom of this page. Here are some 'metrics' of the TTII.

http://www.wtc2011.com/metrics.html

theWatusi

Aug 24, 2009, 8:59 PM

do you know what a metric is?

CGII

Aug 24, 2009, 9:33 PM

Scroll to the bottom of this page. Here are some 'metrics' of the TTII.

http://www.wtc2011.com/metrics.html

Everything on that site is anecdotal. No numbers, no evidence, just claims.

Stu

Aug 24, 2009, 9:40 PM

http://www.triroc.com/wtc/pix/footp.poster.jpg

Hmmm, the sidewalks around that piece of shit lowrise look about wide enough for one person.

J.M.

Aug 24, 2009, 10:19 PM

Is it me?, or what kind of name was MakeNYNYagain.com, that's seriously saying The Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, Brooklyn Bridge, Central Park, the people in the Five bouroughs and the bouroughs them selfs? How can you make New York, New York again when those are really what makes New York, New York. Sure the World Trade Center was huge icons that didnt take much to recognize the sillouet, but with the structures gone.. its still New York, New York

Plokoon11

Aug 24, 2009, 10:31 PM

Man it cheers me up after work to read the claims that these groups try and teach. Cheers as in its funny!

wong21fr

Aug 24, 2009, 10:39 PM

Scroll to the bottom of this page. Here are some 'metrics' of the TTII.

http://www.wtc2011.com/metrics.html

Yeah, those are definitely the "metrics" of the TTII. A whole lot of quantifiable data right there.

That's the issue, Twins, for such a "solid" plan with these awesome economics of scale and mass support, there's zero support provided for such claims. This isn't what I would use to convince a majority of the nation that my concept it better. It's just not realistic enough.

Aleks

Aug 24, 2009, 10:56 PM

Why are all these people on the Twin Towers jock? I mean, you guys are still trying to build [not rebuild] these 2 hideous towers that don't look like the original WTC in any way other than being 2 huge rectangles.

Who do you guys keep insisting that building these 2 towers makes more economic sense than what is currently being done? When was the last time you guys saw a future projection of the cost of redesigning the entire complex and building that ugly memorial and those weak low-rises? How is it economically better to build a 20 story building for a base that was meant to support a 1,300 foot structure? Who is going to fund the entire project? Where do you expect to get the money to redo all the work that has been done?

Why do you guys keep insisting that the current site can be reorganized to accommodate your plan? How are you going to build these 2 massive boxes when a huge terminal is in the way of one and the other would be sitting atop a foundation that was specifically designed for a 975 foot tower? A tower that is nearly 550 feet shorter than your Twin Tower. Where will the core and fountain go for the other tower that is sitting atop the terminal? Around it? Will it float above it? You guys haven't provided us with a single realistic plan that tell us your plan will work out.

And why is it that when we provide information to why your plan won't work you only say, "well, obviously I don't know any information since I'm not the architect" OBVIOUSLY! Some of us aren't architects either yet we're still able to find information on this project in thousands of websites. Why is it that you guys can't find information on your proposal? And don't come with your usual bullshit of stupid youtube videos, links back to the WTCA that doesn't explain enythingwe asked or give us any of yous, "we'll just have to wait for 2 months to see who's really crazy" crap. Because if this project was as serious as you make it sound there would be all this and more information out there. I mean, you guys avoid all our questions and can't seem to even come up with a plan in your mind about how this will work.

And finally, why do you guys only attack the ones who are right and prove you wrong? All you type is crap. I mean, you can't even to seem give us simple reasons as to why your memorial is better. You don't explain the ways your memorial is symbolic of the people that died and how it benefits society currently or in the future. You don't tell us why your plaza will be better or more inviting to the public. You don't show us that your memorial will pay respect to the people who died. What? Are you guys going to engrave the names in that giant wall? How original.

Too bad I live across the country. I'd love to hear all your plans. I would love to hear your explanations on the symbolism of the memorial, your economic charts and figures, and your plan as to how the structures will be placed and supported. Then laugh as I walk out of your little meeting. Plus I have many more questions to ask, questions that won't make sense in this forum.

BStyles

Aug 24, 2009, 11:38 PM

I say you guys should find us some information as to how this plan accomodates the rest of the site instead of badgering the Freedom Tower's progress. That isn't the only thing going on in the site, and even that has made it's way around the PATH. In fact, EVERY project on site(except for Silverstein's towers) has found some way not to disrupt the transit systems, whereas yours hasn't, ant that's what's going to cause the financial and architectural setback, and PLEASE don't redirect this question, because it's something that has to be addressed now, not at a summit.

I mean think about it. There is no available landfill to fill in the land that we've already dug out, so there is no way the 1 Line can be relocated. Also, unless you overlooked this, the 1 line has had a station in the site, Cortlandt Street. Rerouting the tunnel, soon to be station wouldn't be good for commuters.

The PATH station currently sits at bedrock, backed by the western wall of the bathtub. Where is that going to go? There's nowhere for it to move without compromising the memorial or the bathtub, and yet this question was overlooked. I'm no architect, but the core of a building should NEVER be compromised like that.

morelight

Aug 25, 2009, 3:26 AM

Sorry, but I can't figure out how to answer inline so this is the best I can do right now:

All I hear from anyone is 'I want the twin towers back because I think they look better and some anonymous talking head told me it would be so much better than what scores of trained professionals have produced.

--That may be all you hear but I will try to be clearer: I want the Twin Towers back because they were destroyed by an act of war against our country AND THEN the people were defrauded by their own elected officials when the consensus was and still is that they should be restored better than ever.

If it were not public property and if public money were not what put a failed building on GSA life support to begin with it wouldn't be so simple. But it is not Silverstein's property -- just his right to collect rent from comparable space in comparable builidings -- and it is only the Port Authority's property because they are the public's agent. So that logic is circular.

Claiming that your professional sources do not wish to speak on account of preservation of their reputations speaks volumes about your project.

--It's not their reputations, which are golden, but because it would totally overturn their lives. If you don't get it, I can't help it.

--Mislead and badger the public? That's the whole reason we are engaged in this struggle -- because people with power used it to mislead and defeat the will of the people -- that is what is totally unacceptable -- but you accept it because you like what they produced -- even though it was a foul process.

I am not frustrated by those who present their opinions of taste; I am frustrated by those who believe that
a. their opinions are the only opinionsq

--Are you trying to be funny?

So why don't you quit pretending you are working for the families and put your money where your mouth is?

--I am working for only one family -- we are all robbed when officials ignore and deceive us. As for pretending to be working for the families, that's ridiculous. There are as many viewpoints as there were victims. Some of them, many of whom are spokespeople for the 9/11 families, do support our position.

-- What we are doing will never add up for you. I am confident that in the end our efforts will be recognized as a good faith attempt to stand up for what we think is right for our country.

You talk about the architecture as if it supersedes the social contract between the people and the government. You compare images of a conceptual model with millionaire's renderings. I have read so many fundamental misunderstandings about Ken's plan but things will just have to take their course because I don't have the time to devote to this. I've done my best to share another point of view. I have heard all of yours and wish you well. I did get the one message I was hoping for so my time was not wasted. As for my money, I have put my life savings into this effort as has Ken Gardner, and years of dedicated effort.

If it is really about the victims of 9/11, it is really about the victims of 9/11. Not about specific buildings. That is where it breaks down for me. I just don't understand how respecting the victims translates to "we must rebuild the twin towers." I really wish that someone could explain that, because it doesn't logically follow.

-- It is not about buildings, it is about respect for the American ethos. The victims were targeted because they were Americans and then what followed said that "Of, by, and for the people" is a joke, a fraud, a sham.

Someone said: Not to mention the billions of dollars that are already invested into this project. Do you really expect them to take such a gigantic loss and abandon all that investment?

-- Who do you think THEY are? You think it was Silverstein's money or Ward's money?

The property actually belongs to the public.
The billions of dollars that produced all the "progress" at the site is the public's money -- because that is the ONLY kind the Port Authority has.
The leases that are underwriting the Freedom Tower are paid for with State and Federal taxes.
Tower Four is being subsidized by the Port Authority and the City of New York. Almost a billion public dollars is making it possible.
But you talk as if the public has no rights because our elected officials are ignoring us and figure they can get away with it because we are soft citizens.

It would have been easy enough to find out what the majority of the people wanted if officials had wanted to know -- but they didn't -- and they didn't have that right. You can say we don't know what the public wants, and it could be established more conclusively, but poll after poll from 2002 to 2009 indicates that most people agree with us. Officials have a right and duty to overrule what the people want if they have the courage of their convictions and tell us why -- but they do not have that right by some sort of force majeur.

What you are all saying is essentially that an election that is stolen is okay if it puts the candidate you prefer in office. But none of you would really say that knowing that would be the end of America as we know it. So why accept it at the World Trade Center of all places?

Mr. Ward will doubtless say our meeting was merely a courtesy call, but he knows better. He also knows that the plan is not a sketch on the back of a napkin, but a fully developed design for 21st-century Towers that he knows has won the admiration of some eminently qualified individuals.

The salient point is that if we were worthy of courtesy then, the position we represent is worthy of courtesy now. The public is entitled to know how thoroughly Mr. Ward looked into the feasibility of raising new Twin Towers at the then-stagnant site before committing public funds to a course that has left us with the prospect of two subsidized buildings, an extravagant PATH station, and two retail stumps to serve as our answer to one of our nation’s darkest days.

Because, if the reason that the World Trade Center most people prefer is so much less feasible today is because Mr. Ward spent eleven months and billions of public dollars pumping the site full of steroids in order to defeat the popular will, then he needs to be dismissed and the minutes of the Port Authority board meetings scoured to see who else was in support of such a contemptuous strategy. Because this country is not a banana republic yet. But it will be soon enough if we keep rolling over and going back to sleep.

I am sorry I can't respond to all the remarks, but I have to get to bed. But I will try to knock a few more off:

But... that is a matter of taste. My opinion is not the last word, nor is yours.
--Exactly.

--The reference to Deep Throat was simply saying that people accept anonymous information when it suits them.

-- Changing the skyline automatically translates into "Al Qaeda was here" -- that's why images are manipulated -- because they are so subliminally powerful.

Meanwhile, if any of you can explain how all the electricity to circulate that water can be considered environmentally friendly I would like to hear it.

MLD

Aleks

Aug 25, 2009, 4:05 AM

<<Claiming that your professional sources do not wish to speak on account of preservation of their reputations speaks volumes about your project. >>

--It's not their reputations, which are golden, but because it would totally overturn their lives. If you don't get it, I can't help it.

That makes no sense. If the people who are trying to get this project on its way actually want it to be built, then it doesn't matter how long or how much it takes and they should be trying to get more people by providing us with some logical explanation to as this project will proceed.

You say the electricity for the fountains is bad? Look at your proposed project? It doesn't provide greenery other than a few trees here and there. It just creates this giant concrete plaza which is hideous as well as un-environmentally friendly. And the towers? Those small windows are supposed to let light into the buildings [which means more energy to light the inside]. Not to mention that those low-rises don't let any light into the base of its neighbors. Not only that, the low-rises are so wide that they block off views of near-by buildings and cast shadows over the streets all around. And you think the fountains will use a lot of energy? Yes they will but compared to the entire site it's only a tiny fraction of the power. Unlike your proposed buildings which combined would use dozens the times of energy to power than the fountains.

And yet again, you avoid the questions we are asking by giving us a speech on how reputations don't matter and how the public is paying for the project.

And come on? You're not changing the skyline? You're building 2 massive towers that don't even look like the original towers and would probably be a disgrace to Minoru Yamasaki. Not to mention that both towers are almost 200 feet taller than the original WTC and there is an antenna that looks like a missile. I suppose you also want to plant trees and grass on the site of Flight 93 instead of creating a memorial because according to you, it will automatically translate into "Al Qaeda was here"

BStyles

Aug 25, 2009, 4:49 AM

I would have respected this plan a little more if they actually tried to portray the original twins' facade a lttle bit better, and reduced them back to 1362' and 1368', the original heights of the original towers. An increased amount of office space is no substitute for symbolism. That, the Freedom Tower actually captures and more.

philvia

Aug 25, 2009, 4:53 AM

:haha: :haha: :haha:
this thread is hilarious. the twin towers people are quite comical :jester:

and it's also interesting that they all registered at the same time :haha: twenty bucks says they all have the same IP as well.

vid

Aug 25, 2009, 4:56 AM

You compare images of a conceptual model with millionaire's renderings.

Has it not occurred to you that maybe the plan that can afford "millionaire's renderings" is the one that actually has support behind it?

I found this funny:

Two towers with a uniform floorplate can be built with much greater speed and economy than four unique towers involving scores of different floorplates - putting us ahead of schedule, not behind.

I guess Floorplates 'я' Us charges extra for the custom orders! And it would be behind schedule. The current tower is scheduled for completion in 2013. How long will it take to demolish everything, prepare the site, then build and finish the TTII project? Far longer than 4 years, I'd bet. Not to mention the outrage and legal issues surrounding completely hijacking such a project. As pointed out earlier, the foundations on the site are set up to accommodate what is going to be built where. Your plan is going to have things built on soil that isn't prepared to hold such loads, or on ground that is designed to accommodate heavier loads. It's also going to disrupt the public transit system. It just isn't very thought out and I hate to break it to you, but saying something doesn't make it so. They did expect the Freedom Tower to be complete by 2009. Shit happens. You think it won't happen to TTII?

The location and design of the Twin Towers makes them secure from truck bomb attacks.

Yeah, the WTC's security planters worked wonders!

breathesgelatin

Aug 25, 2009, 5:02 AM

--That may be all you hear but I will try to be clearer: I want the Twin Towers back because they were destroyed by an act of war against our country AND THEN the people were defrauded by their own elected officials when the consensus was and still is that they should be restored better than ever.

Act of war? Ok...

Again, we have no consensus, as you yourself admit elsewhere.

--It's not their reputations, which are golden, but because it would totally overturn their lives. If you don't get it, I can't help it.

Why does supporting this project automatically overturn one's life?

--I am working for only one family -- we are all robbed when officials ignore and deceive us. As for pretending to be working for the families, that's ridiculous. There are as many viewpoints as there were victims. Some of them, many of whom are spokespeople for the 9/11 families, do support our position.

-- What we are doing will never add up for you. I am confident that in the end our efforts will be recognized as a good faith attempt to stand up for what we think is right for our country.

You talk about the architecture as if it supersedes the social contract between the people and the government. You compare images of a conceptual model with millionaire's renderings. I have read so many fundamental misunderstandings about Ken's plan but things will just have to take their course because I don't have the time to devote to this. I've done my best to share another point of view. I have heard all of yours and wish you well. I did get the one message I was hoping for so my time was not wasted. As for my money, I have put my life savings into this effort as has Ken Gardner, and years of dedicated effort.

Clearly, you see this issue as being at the core of our democracy, whereas most people in this forum, and I think probably in the US generally, do not. IT is certainly important to Americans, but I don't think it's valued by them in the way you're describing. As in, our democracy will die if the Freedom Tower is built.

I really do admire people who pull their all into their dreams, and I'm sorry that it seems that your sacrifices may have been in vein. I guess we will see, on that note.

Americans are a lot more worried about their tax dollars on healthcare, defense, etc., than they are about the buildings... I don't know if that's wrong or right, but that's how it is.

-- It is not about buildings, it is about respect for the American ethos. The victims were targeted because they were Americans and then what followed said that "Of, by, and for the people" is a joke, a fraud, a sham.

Honestly, I don't think I even understand your sentiments here... Do you understand how republican government works? I guess I am just not "American" enough.

It would have been easy enough to find out what the majority of the people wanted if officials had wanted to know -- but they didn't -- and they didn't have that right. You can say we don't know what the public wants, and it could be established more conclusively, but poll after poll from 2002 to 2009 indicates that most people agree with us. Officials have a right and duty to overrule what the people want if they have the courage of their convictions and tell us why -- but they do not have that right by some sort of force majeur.

Are you really claiming here that we should have left the decision up to a public referendum here?

What you are all saying is essentially that an election that is stolen is okay if it puts the candidate you prefer in office. But none of you would really say that knowing that would be the end of America as we know it. So why accept it at the World Trade Center of all places?

Please research the history of stolen elections and get back to me.

Mr. Ward will doubtless say our meeting was merely a courtesy call, but he knows better. He also knows that the plan is not a sketch on the back of a napkin, but a fully developed design for 21st-century Towers that he knows has won the admiration of some eminently qualified individuals.

OK, then why don't you tell us a bit about what impressed him? Some of the technical specs and such? Furthermore, if the qualified individuals were willing to let you name drop to Ward, can't you to us, and to - ahem! - the American public?!

Because this country is not a banana republic yet. But it will be soon enough if we keep rolling over and going back to sleep.

OK, wow, you pretty much proved my point about ethnocentrism.

Know that "banana republic" is not really a term you should be using in public.

Besides all that, completing this project is not going to save the US from its decline, if it is indeed its decline that we are experiencing.

--The reference to Deep Throat was simply saying that people accept anonymous information when it suits them.

People accept anonymous information if it confirms other evidence that they have.

-- Changing the skyline automatically translates into "Al Qaeda was here" -- that's why images are manipulated -- because they are so subliminally powerful.

Images are indeed subliminally powerful. But I still do not accept your analysis of this image. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

CGII

Aug 25, 2009, 5:29 AM

If it were not public property and if public money were not what put a failed building on GSA life support to begin with it wouldn't be so simple. But it is not Silverstein's property -- just his right to collect rent from comparable space in comparable builidings -- and it is only the Port Authority's property because they are the public's agent. So that logic is circular.

No, it is Silverstein's right and responsibility to replace the complex if it should be destroyed, par his agreement on the lease.

--Mislead and badger the public? That's the whole reason we are engaged in this struggle -- because people with power used it to mislead and defeat the will of the people -- that is what is totally unacceptable -- but you accept it because you like what they produced -- even though it was a foul process.

How has the process mislead and badgered the public? You throw out these claims like 'politicians and businessmen neglecting the masses!' and you have nothing to substantiate it! And what's more, you use it as an excuse to mislead and badger yourself!

You talk about the architecture as if it supersedes the social contract between the people and the government.

There is a point at which an architect must make decisions to make a rational, reasonable, and realistic structure using his/her futher knowledge of the subject. Saying architecture should be democratic is like saying piloting an airplane should be democratic; fine, let the people decide where the plane is going, but don't give them the controls because none of them know how to fly.

ANYWAY it is a private project given the legal turf.

You compare images of a conceptual model with millionaire's renderings.

I'm glad you bring this up. This, to me, is proof that you have no credible professionals backing your plan. Producing a decent rendering is sooooo easy to do. I made this when I was 17 on my home computer before I had any trained experience in architecture, and personally I think it blows the pants off of anything visual the WTC2011 people have given us:

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/821/ruvin8ax9.jpg

That the images on the website of the very foundation proposing the TTII are so bad communicates to me that you don't have anybody on your team that really knows what they're doing. So don't blame me for admiring 'a millionaire's renderings,' blame yourselves for taking crappy photos of a model instead of making renderings. Your presentation of this project is third rate; if an architect in a competition presented his images like WTC2011 does they would be laughed into exile. I guess I can't blame your 'architects' for wishing to not come forward.

The property actually belongs to the public.

Yes, but it's far more complex than that. I think you'll find the construction of the WTC was more or less illegal to begin with. The Port Authority, as a public agency, cannot build private office developments. The WTC was built originally with the intent of housing the Port Authority, which it did, but changes in the organization meant the buildings would be mostly rented privately. Larry Silverstein was one of those renters, and essentially owns the rights to the property; Port Authority money must be given to Silverstein in order to fulfill their contract. The only reason the Port Authority is allowed to build the new WTC today is because it owes back the investment Silverstein made in the property.

What you are all saying is essentially that an election that is stolen is okay if it puts the candidate you prefer in office. But none of you would really say that knowing that would be the end of America as we know it. So why accept it at the World Trade Center of all places?

Do you actually know anything about the legal history of the WTC or do you just like to make overdramatic comparisons and propaganda?

Mr. Ward will doubtless say our meeting was merely a courtesy call, but he knows better. He also knows that the plan is not a sketch on the back of a napkin, but a fully developed design for 21st-century Towers that he knows has won the admiration of some eminently qualified individuals.

Prove it!

--The reference to Deep Throat was simply saying that people accept anonymous information when it suits them.

I accept anonymous information when it leades to evidence. Your anonymous professionals offer none. Therefore your Deep Throat reference is misguided, useless, and misleading.

-- Changing the skyline automatically translates into "Al Qaeda was here" -- that's why images are manipulated -- because they are so subliminally powerful.

Wow. It sounds like you're taking more tips from Goebbels than from Le Corbusier or Frank Lloyd Wright.

morelight

Aug 25, 2009, 2:13 PM

All the discussion about buildings is a waste of time because it is based on the "you're SO stupid -- we're SO smart" school of "thought." So this is where I have to leave it -- because one thing about being closer to 60 than 20 is not having time for online forums. I've tried to respond to honest disagreement, and found some of the dialogue instructive and engaging, but the comments from people who think they know everything and aren't interested in how things look in a different light from a different angle, and think that personal attacks are a legitimate way to disagree, are just sad.

The reason I ever got involved in this effort -- and this thread -- is because I see a connection between the way this was handled -- the way it was reported -- and the future of this country. And there are others, people with a knowledge of history and human nature who see that connection as well. If we are right, we are fighting on your behalf, too, whether you like it or not. But, if we see that connection and don't fight, we aren't worthy of the incredible good fortune of having been born in this country. And growing up between Lexington and Concord made me romantic about America.

The analogy someone made to passengers not being the ones to fly a plane was a great analogy for REPRESENTATIVE government. Pilots don't just go where they want to go -- they go where their paying customers want to go. If the pilot has to divert for the safety of the passengers he doesn't have to explain or even inform them until the maneuver is over. But to suggest that just because Larry Silverstein owns the airline he could tell the pilot where to fly, or that Chief Steward Ward has more authority than the people he is there to serve, or that when the passengers are let off in a different place than their destination they don't have a right to demand answers is insane.

If it was a prudent decision that possibly saved their lives, the pilot is a hero. But if they are told that they have no right to question the decision, because they are in a very nice place, have a good day, they have a right to get their money back, an apology, and a first-class ticket to where they originally wanted to go. And just because some of the passengers are happy with the destination doesn't give them the right to invalidate the claims of those who object, demean their character, or insult their intelligence.

And that is where the media comes in. If the only reports are of happy passengers who are so pleased with the trip and are overjoyed with the destination -- and it is made to appear that a few disgruntled passengers are in the minority when most of the passengers agree -- that is malpractice. WHY the media caved in is not the issue here. But that the popular sentiment didn't even get an honorable mention in a single documentary or report is malpractice because people are forming their opinions and expectations based on manipulation and deceit.

There is strong statistical and anecdotal evidence that most Americans wanted and still prefer safer, stronger, taller, better Twin Towers to rise from the ashes. That is not just an opinion and an open debate could quickly prove that statement right or wrong. And given the shambles of the current project (are we looking at the same site?) that is still an important debate because what rises at Ground Zero will speak for all of us. You can't be okay with being lied to just because you like the result, because it is making a mockery of our country. How can we reason together if we are given blatantly selective accounts with material facts removed? It's like asking a jury to consider a case where the judge would only allow one side into the record. That's a mistrial. That's a miscarriage. No one wins.

We agree to disagree, but I have tried my best to share the reasons why this matters so much to me. If that is a joke to some of you, that is really not my problem.

BStyles

Aug 25, 2009, 2:47 PM

Well i'm still not sure how we're being lied to and the truth is hidden from us, giving that we can see progress right in front of us, and i'm not sure where this airplane metaphor came from, but it's bound to hit an uncomfortable spot. But this argument won't prevent the summit on September 9th, and I look forward to the outcome, whether good or bad.

And we can respect the outcome in a fashionable manner, right(no "i told you so" or that BS)? If you feel strongly about the towers, then there is a reason this thread has gone on for 18+ pages and there is also a reason for september 9th. 15 more days, I guess.

morelight

Aug 25, 2009, 4:21 PM

wong21fr

Aug 25, 2009, 4:48 PM

We agree to disagree, but I have tried my best to share the reasons why this matters so much to me. If that is a joke to some of you, that is really not my problem.

It's not the reasons that we disagree with. Many of your concerns regarding the rebuilding process are legitimate, i.e. the political infighting and the P.A.'s incompetence. What we disagree with is your proposed solution, the Twin Towers II, and presenting it as a legitimate alternative. No one in your camp seems able to provide any quantifiable evidence to back of the claims of the proposal being the superior one and as much that everything that is currently under construction should be halted, demolished, and the rebuilt.

I admire your conviction and zeal for your cause. But, I have not seen any arguments that are at all effective, asides from emotional and philosophical ones, from a realistic viewpoint.

I do take offense with your view that 9/11 was a declaration of war and that restoring the Twin Towers is the only legitimate response. It was a vicious attack, but it began, and ended, in the real-est sense for you on that day. All of your efforts for the past few years is a summation of how to remember it. But, for those of us who have taken up the duty of taking that war overseas, the war continues to this day and these ongoing efforts to make 9/11 more than a remembrance only serves to continue to distract this country from the ongoing conflict.

This conflict over the WTC reconstruction should be provincial issue (between Silverstein and the PA) and not a national one, there are bigger issues that need to be focused on.

Dac150

Aug 25, 2009, 5:07 PM

morelight

Aug 25, 2009, 6:03 PM

I deleted the body of this because I duplicated it by mistake :)

morelight

Aug 25, 2009, 6:11 PM

I am kind of retarded about how this works -- sorry about the presentation:

It's not the reasons that we disagree with. Many of your concerns regarding the rebuilding process are legitimate, i.e. the political infighting and the P.A.'s incompetence. What we disagree with is your proposed solution, the Twin Towers II, and presenting it as a legitimate alternative. No one in your camp seems able to provide any quantifiable evidence to back of the claims of the proposal being the superior one and as much that everything that is currently under construction should be halted, demolished, and the rebuilt.

>> But that could have easily been addressed if Ward had done a feasibility study when there was very little to be halted, demolished and rebuilt, and it was his duty, given that he knew of the credible support for the project.

Then, if "Twin Towers II" was not a solution that could save billions of dollars and years of effort, that would have been established, it would have shut us up, and everyone would make the best of what we've got. The viability of "Twin Towers II" cannot be established without scrutinizing the plans -- and those who have done that do not share your conclusion. <<

I admire your conviction and zeal for your cause. But, I have not seen any arguments that are at all effective, asides from emotional and philosophical ones, from a realistic viewpoint.

>> Thank you -- I wan't hoping that any of you would agree -- just that you would consider what I've said. <<

I do take offense with your view that 9/11 was a declaration of war and that restoring the Twin Towers is the only legitimate response.

>> Really? It's my view -- what I see -- why should anything I see offend you? But don't take my word for it. (http://www.twintowersalliance.com/petition/so-much-for-consensus) Or do you think he doesn't mean what he says? Or doesn't have the will to carry it out? And by the way, did you catch the icons on the altar behind him? I never said it is the only legitimate response, but I do think it is an indispensible part of the response. <<

It was a vicious attack, but it began, and ended, in the real-est sense for you on that day. All of your efforts for the past few years is a summation of how to remember it. But, for those of us who have taken up the duty of taking that war overseas, the war continues to this day and these ongoing efforts to make 9/11 more than a remembrance only serves to continue to distract this country from the ongoing conflict.

>>A vicious attack?!! I didn't notice where you are from before I started this reply, but eight years ago I was headed to work in a company that lost 300 co-workers. Fathers, wives, only children… Many of them were visiting Marsh & McLennan from other offices and parts of the country. You are on thin ice telling me that I am caught up in how to remember it when I have mortgaged my life to the principle of distilling the lessons of that day for the future. And this is where it has led me: be engaged, question authority, love your country, like your fellow Americans, and develop your muscles so that you can do your duty -- whatever you see that to be.<<

This conflict over the WTC reconstruction should be provincial issue (between Silverstein and the PA) and not a national one, there are bigger issues that need to be focused on.

>> This resonates with people all over the country and the world, and I don't believe we have any bigger issues to focus on -- because I think that getting this right -- which means not just ramming what a small but powerful segment wants to ram down our throats -- but listening to each other, reasoning together, and being willing to do whatever is we have to to achieve the best possible solution -- whatever that is -- would be a model for every other problem we have. << :cheers:

morelight

Aug 25, 2009, 6:34 PM

What bothers me is simply that you continue to believe that emotional influenced explanations are suppose to subsidize for information to provides solid evidence in the logistics and practicality of your claim.

I have no problem in people having disagreements in architecture, but you come here talking a big game but you can’t back it up with information that is relevant to making your proposal a fraction possible. Then you play the emotional card and expect that to detract from what really is desired, and that desire is credible information.

I can see how you all end up posting thousands of comments! I have to get to work, but I am glad to end with this one. I don't think that emotionally based explanations substitute for the facts you are asking for. But what I have been sharing here is what I am qualified to say. I am not Ken Gardner. I have been with him in rooms making presentations that have answered objection after objection and ended up impressing everyone. I know that is not what you want to hear, but that is all I can say.

He is someone who has pushed himself to the max year after year to produce work that would normally take an engineering team to accomplish. You can hardly expect him to come here and report to you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't get answers -- I don't know when the information you want will be published, but I expect that it will be.

Meanwhile, for all the things I should have done today, instead of writing these replies, someone really made my day -- when I noticed that "Delusion" had been changed back to "Vision". Thank you. Have a good one... MLD

wong21fr

Aug 25, 2009, 6:50 PM

But that could have easily been addressed if Ward had done a feasibility study when there was very little to be halted, demolished and rebuilt, and it was his duty, given that he knew of the credible support for the project.

Then, if "Twin Towers II" was not a solution that could save billions of dollars and years of effort, that would have been established, it would have shut us up, and everyone would make the best of what we've got. The viability of "Twin Towers II" cannot be established without scrutinizing the plans -- and those who have done that do not share your conclusion.

Once again, what credible support? The shred of evidence that you have presented; having a meeting with Mr. Ward of the P.A. where he said that your proposal was “compelling”, isn’t that much. It was most likely, in my view, Mr. Ward’s way of blowing you off in such a manner as to keep you sated and give you false hope. The petitions that you have on your site, with a mere 7,000 signatures are not indicative of a groundswell of support. Neither are your vague claims of having persons of influence in your corner. All we ask for is a bit of quantifiable support.

Really? It's my view -- what I see -- why should anything I see offend you? But don't take my word for it. (http://www.twintowersalliance.com/petition/so-much-for-consensus) Or do you think he doesn't mean what he says? Or doesn't have the will to carry it out? And by the way, did you catch the icons on the altar behind him? I never said it is the only legitimate response, but I do think it is an indispensible part of the response.

I believe he has the will to carry out his threats, just as I have the will to see him dead. I would rather the energy of the nation be spent on eradicating terrorists and, more importantly, the conditions that allowed for the fundamentalist thinking to take hold in the world in the first place.

While I think that the indispensable, part of the response was the commitment by the United States, in truth the national security establishment, that this wouldn’t happen ever again. While the symbolism of the 9/11 attacks is potent, it can be eclipsed by other symbolism.

A vicious attack?!! I didn't notice where you are from before I started this reply, but eight years ago I was headed to work in a company that lost 300 co-workers. Fathers, wives, only children… Many of them were visiting Marsh & McLennan from other offices and parts of the country. You are on thin ice telling me that I am caught up in how to remember it when I have mortgaged my life to the principle of distilling the lessons of that day for the future. And this is where it has led me: be engaged, question authority, love your country, like your fellow Americans, and develop your muscles so that you can do your duty -- whatever you see that to be.

First off, I’m sorry for your loss and can empathize with your reaction. However, yes, it was a vicious attack. Same as Pearl Harbor was a vicious attack. You may take offense to that categorization. But it was one of the initial attacks that are part of a long, long, long war, one that I have fought along with my fellow comrades for the past few years while everyone else has moved on. So, yes, it was a vicious attack. I have also buried comrades, all of them long before their time, who have died in the long war. I’m sure they won’t be the last. This has led me to this point: to fight for my country while the populace concerns itself with more trivial manners. I truly believe in the saying, “the military is at war, America is at the mall.”

This resonates with people all over the country and the world, and I don't believe we have any bigger issues to focus on -- because getting this right -- which means not just ramming what a small but powerful segment wants to ram down our throats -- but listening to each other, reasoning together, and being willing to do whatever is to achieve the best possible solution -- whatever that is -- would be a model for every other problem we have.

I like your model of problem solving. But, I don’t think that either of us is willing to reason together here. Both think that the others ideas regarding rebuilding are incorrect, and neither side have yet to present any evidence to sway the other. The advantage that I have is that I can point to something tangible rising out of the ground, however imperfect the process may be. But your advantage is having an idea that is not sullied by having go from idea to construction with all of the associated drama and setbacks.

Dac150

Aug 25, 2009, 7:24 PM

Morelight, I both acknowledge and admire your emotional dedication and commitment to your cause, even though my opinion of it differs. However, I cannot help but continue to stand by the fact that even if Kenneth Gardner is able to answer all the questions and address all concerns, it would still be too late.

What’s done has been done, or in the process of being completed. I don’t know how else to make that clear but repeat myself (as others have done), but your proposal is simply not going to amount to solid reality.

I would wish that all this effort would go into something that would serve more as a benefit to the victims’ families instead of this fighting for a lost and unrealistic cause.

With that said I really have nothing more to say to you. I’m certainly not going to wish you luck on your endeavor, but what I will wish for is a turnaround of what your fighting for into something that is more proactive for the ones who need it the most; the families of those who lost so much.

morelight

Aug 25, 2009, 8:07 PM

morelight

Aug 25, 2009, 9:38 PM

Quote:
But that could have easily been addressed if Ward had done a feasibility study when there was very little to be halted, demolished and rebuilt, and it was his duty, given that he knew of the credible support for the project.

Quote:

Then, if "Twin Towers II" was not a solution that could save billions of dollars and years of effort, that would have been established, it would have shut us up, and everyone would make the best of what we've got. The viability of "Twin Towers II" cannot be established without scrutinizing the plans -- and those who have done that do not share your conclusion.

Once again, what credible support? The shred of evidence that you have presented; having a meeting with Mr. Ward of the P.A. where he said that your proposal was “compelling”, isn’t that much. It was most likely, in my view, Mr. Ward’s way of blowing you off in such a manner as to keep you sated and give you false hope.

>>I didn't say he said it was "compelling" -- he said he would look into how feasible it was to change course and give us a prompt answer.<<

The petitions that you have on your site, with a mere 7,000 signatures are not indicative of a groundswell of support. Neither are your vague claims of having persons of influence in your corner. All we ask for is a bit of quantifiable support.

>>If you ask 100 people if they know there is organized support for rebuilding the Twin Towers, 100 will say "No." If you ask 100,000 you may get 1. If that number was even 100 -- 1 in a 1000 -- and we only had 7,000 signatures, that would be bad. But as it is, I frequently hear from people who want to know why everyone they know agrees but no one knows there is any organized movement? According to George Washington: "In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." It's a dangerous situation when the most sophisticated communications system ever can get away with keeping people in the dark. It may seem to promote what you want in this case, but it undermines the basis of self-government.<<

Quote:
Really? It's my view -- what I see -- why should anything I see offend you? But don't take my word for it. Or do you think he doesn't mean what he says? Or doesn't have the will to carry it out? And by the way, did you catch the icons on the altar behind him? I never said it is the only legitimate response, but I do think it is an indispensible part of the response.

I believe he has the will to carry out his threats, just as I have the will to see him dead. I would rather the energy of the nation be spent on eradicating terrorists and, more importantly, the conditions that allowed for the fundamentalist thinking to take hold in the world in the first place.

While I think that the indispensable, part of the response was the commitment by the United States, in truth the national security establishment, that this wouldn’t happen ever again. While the symbolism of the 9/11 attacks is potent, it can be eclipsed by other symbolism.

>>The symbolism of the Towers crumbling was the most widely viewed visual impression in history and I do not think anything could be as powerful an antidote as their rising. That is just an opinion, but it is an opinion that many share.<<

Quote:
A vicious attack?!! I didn't notice where you are from before I started this reply, but eight years ago I was headed to work in a company that lost 300 co-workers. Fathers, wives, only children… Many of them were visiting Marsh & McLennan from other offices and parts of the country. You are on thin ice telling me that I am caught up in how to remember it when I have mortgaged my life to the principle of distilling the lessons of that day for the future. And this is where it has led me: be engaged, question authority, love your country, like your fellow Americans, and develop your muscles so that you can do your duty -- whatever you see that to be.

First off, I’m sorry for your loss and can empathize with your reaction. However, yes, it was a vicious attack. Same as Pearl Harbor was a vicious attack. You may take offense to that categorization. But it was one of the initial attacks that are part of a long, long, long war, one that I have fought along with my fellow comrades for the past few years while everyone else has moved on. So, yes, it was a vicious attack. I have also buried comrades, all of them long before their time, who have died in the long war. I’m sure they won’t be the last. This has led me to this point: to fight for my country while the populace concerns itself with more trivial manners. I truly believe in the saying, “the military is at war, America is at the mall.”

>>Too true, but I think that the reason they are at the mall is because they are not engaged in life because so much seems to be out of their hands. Thank you, but I did not lose a loved one. What I meant was that "vicious" doesn't begin to describe it. "Diabolical" comes closer. I am deeply appreciative that we have warriors in our midst -- thank you for being one.

Quote:
This resonates with people all over the country and the world, and I don't believe we have any bigger issues to focus on -- because getting this right -- which means not just ramming what a small but powerful segment wants to ram down our throats -- but listening to each other, reasoning together, and being willing to do whatever is to achieve the best possible solution -- whatever that is -- would be a model for every other problem we have.

I like your model of problem solving. But, I don’t think that either of us is willing to reason together here. Both think that the others ideas regarding rebuilding are incorrect, and neither side have yet to present any evidence to sway the other. The advantage that I have is that I can point to something tangible rising out of the ground, however imperfect the process may be. But your advantage is having an idea that is not sullied by having go from idea to construction with all of the associated drama and setbacks.

>>I was reading George Washington's Farewell Address recently and it confirmed in me the belief that most sacred part of being an American is building bridges. We can't stop caring passionately about what we care about or water down our dreams. But we have to defend our positions without eroding our unity, which he called "the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed." If we can promote our different visions as we see fit, but maintain good will and generosity of spirit, we will always overcome what threatens us. And if we don't, we won't.<<

Aleks

Aug 25, 2009, 10:04 PM

morelight

Aug 25, 2009, 10:49 PM

You've given us paragraphs of your opinion and how you guys have support of the American people yet you still have managed to avoid the questions on the REAL benefits of this project and how it would come to be real.

If you've been in the same room with Mr. Kent and you've listened to his speeches then how is it that you don't have information on how the project will carry out. Why is it that you cannot remember? Why didn't you take notes if you knew you would need to prove points to other people later on.

>>I'm not avoiding anything -- but we obviously have a different take on REAL benefits. You like the current plan -- I think it is unfortunate. You think it is a marvel. I think it only exists because of political dirty tricks. But I also think it is in a lot of trouble that has nothing do do with "Twin Towers II" so let's just see how things develop.

M II A II R II K

Aug 25, 2009, 10:54 PM

This summit is more likely to amount to being a protest and making one's objection noted. Any flaws in that plan aside.

vid

Aug 25, 2009, 10:59 PM

Rail>Auto

Aug 25, 2009, 11:29 PM

I'm just curious... Why does everyone seem to believe that it is either Freedom Tower OR the Twin Towers II? Theres room for both. Freedom Tower is north of the whole plaza. I say scrap buildings 3 and 4 for sure (I like the top of 2 but thats it) and put the Twin Towers in their place directly east of the originals. I also like the design for the memorial that the TT2s have.

Stu

Aug 25, 2009, 11:44 PM

I'm just curious... Why does everyone seem to believe that it is either Freedom Tower OR the Twin Towers II? Theres room for both.

I want some of what this guy is smoking. :)

Seriously, come on, there is definitely not enough room.

Rail>Auto

Aug 25, 2009, 11:59 PM

I want some of what this guy is smoking. :)

Seriously, come on, there is definitely not enough room.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42063000/jpg/_42063000_freedomtowers203ap.jpg

Your telling me that TWO Twin Towers could not fit in the land set aside for the THREE other buildings to the right in this photo?

morelight

Aug 26, 2009, 12:04 AM

This summit is more likely to amount to being a protest and making one's objection noted. Any flaws in that plan aside.

I think you will be surprised. If that were the point of it, then that would make what I have written today mindless rhetoric indeed. But that is not the intention at all.

Dac150

Aug 26, 2009, 12:22 AM

Theres room for both. Freedom Tower is north of the whole plaza. I say scrap buildings 3 and 4 for sure (I like the top of 2 but thats it) and put the Twin Towers in their place directly east of the originals. I also like the design for the memorial that the TT2s have.

:crazy:

Stu

Aug 26, 2009, 1:48 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42063000/jpg/_42063000_freedomtowers203ap.jpg

Your telling me that TWO Twin Towers could not fit in the land set aside for the THREE other buildings to the right in this photo?

Not the way the twin towers are configured. The site isn't set up for that. You can't just place towers like that as you please. What's more is they won't. I'm done with this silly thread.

breathesgelatin

Aug 26, 2009, 2:43 AM

All this talk of enlightening people, responding to the diabolical, etc. freaks me out.

I'm realizing that the politics of the TTII freaks me the hell out.

Rail>Auto

Aug 26, 2009, 2:53 AM

Not the way the twin towers are configured. The site isn't set up for that. You can't just place towers like that as you please. What's more is they won't. I'm done with this silly thread.

The way the Twin Towers are configured? What makes them different than the other 3 buildings proposed? They go straight up, nothing hangs out on them that would interfere with the other buildings. Most of the land is still a hole except for the base that is put in for #4.. Look at the TT2's proposed site plan...

http://www.wtc2011.com/Site_Plan.pdf

They are exactly where I am proposing locating them (I don't know why you think they wouldn't put them there)... In their plan only a smaller building #5 is in the place of Freedom Tower which can be scrated. Ken has even said that the TT2's can be moved around to fit in on the parcel with what has already been done.... The fact is, the project is shaky at best and I'd rather see the TT2s than a dull building 4 and a scaled back building 2 and 3. It seems to me that the only ppl against TT2s are the ones who like Freedom Tower. Why not do both? It really isn't too late, especially since the developer's finances are plummeting.

Dac150

Aug 26, 2009, 3:03 AM

They are exactly where I am proposing locating them.

And who are you exactly? Please, stop talking nonsense because your ‘proposal’ is not going to happen.

theWatusi

Aug 26, 2009, 3:05 AM

The way the Twin Towers are configured? What makes them different than the other 3 buildings proposed? They go straight up, nothing hangs out on them that would interfere with the other buildings. Most of the land is still a hole except for the base that is put in for #4.. Look at the TT2's proposed site plan...

He's talking about the way the twins were laid out on the site relative to each other.

Dac150

Aug 26, 2009, 3:10 AM

^^^ That name change isn’t permanent is it?

theWatusi

Aug 26, 2009, 3:19 AM

I hope not...I'm still not sure what I did to piss off Mark that he changed it to this of all names. :(

Rail>Auto

Aug 26, 2009, 3:25 AM

And who are you exactly? Please, stop talking nonsense because your ‘proposal’ is not going to happen.

What is your plan? Maintain status quo? The Port Authority has already said that's not feasible and it will take a gov't bailout to accomplish whatever they want to salvage..

Who am I? Not anyone special, I'm just saying what I would like to see and I don't see what has been done that can't be undone east of the memorial other than the building 4 base which can be converted to the South Tower.

Rail>Auto

Aug 26, 2009, 3:28 AM

He's talking about the way the twins were laid out on the site relative to each other.

Yea I see what he's saying, but I think that the only things being built right now east of where the former towers sat is the base to building 4 and the PATH, both of which could still be used for a TT2 site plan. Although the smaller buildings around the TT2s would have to be scrapped.

vid

Aug 26, 2009, 3:33 AM

If the towers aren't going to be located relative to each other as they were in the original plan, what is the point of re-building them? Of course the TTII plan totally screws up their façade anyway. You might as well clad them in masonry.

213

Aug 26, 2009, 6:20 AM

The Twin Towers of the WTC were marveled by all. Because they were symbols of America's freedom they were destroyed. Many believed they should be rebuild t oshow our defiance as well as millions of others.

What are you really "rebuilding"? Prior to September 11, the iconic value of the towers was largely in the imagination of al-Qaeda. The projected symbolism was not of freedom, but of U.S. global power. To most Americans, the towers were but modernist boxes on the Manhattan skyline, recognized largely through films and post cards. The very name "World Trade Center" was not household Americana until the events of September 11 made it so. To rebuild the towers would hardly be a restoration of "what was" (such as it was), nor a salve to those who have suffered. I only see a cynical appeal to dimestore patriotism that will only inspire the naive.

Next: What are you finally "defying"...? Al-Qaeda is an ad hoc, non-state adversary which, though dangerous, is not an existential rival to the U.S. or to Western values. They actually don't care how we live; they mainly want us out of the Middle East, where our support for OPEC governments frustrates bin Laden's vision of a united, pan-Arab Islamist state. Such goal is obvious fantasy, and neither it nor al-Qaeda as we know them are likely to survive bin Laden's lifetime -- yet he is neo-conservatively lionized as our gravest threat, a shadow over the destiny of man. It's nonsense, and achieves little beyond sowing undue fear for an enemy projected wholly out of scale -- which is exactly what al-Qaeda desires and needs. Why lend yourself to that...?

We can best honor the victims of September 11 by improving upon what came before, be it at the WTC site, or in our appreciation of human values, or in our understanding of the political and cultural complexities of today's world -- not least, those which came to bear in lower Manhattan. Your campaign to rebuild the towers serves none of this.

ummagumma66

Aug 26, 2009, 6:58 AM

As a non-New Yorker who's been up the WTC, I'd say the best way to pay tribute the 9/11 and to the memory of the victims is not to rebuild as it were. Build the Freedom Tower and complete the new WTC complex.

Aleks

Aug 26, 2009, 7:30 AM

>>I'm not avoiding anything -- but we obviously have a different take on REAL benefits. You like the current plan -- I think it is unfortunate. You think it is a marvel. I think it only exists because of political dirty tricks. But I also think it is in a lot of trouble that has nothing do do with "Twin Towers II" so let's just see how things develop.

Yes you have. Whether you notice it or not. You still haven't answered any of our questions on how the plan will roll out. We've heard your take on things and from other TTII supporters but we don't have any plans that can give us a sign that your plan is in fact as serious as you make it sound.

I don't think it's unfortunate that you like the TTII site, I plain don't care. What I do care is your nonsense, your dodging our questions with these explanations on how the current plan is a product of the bad politics and whatnot. You also tell us that you've talked to all these important people yet you don't say what they thought and how you tried to convince them that your plan is worth redesigning the entire complex and redoing all these studies and designs.

And I never stated that the current plan is a marble. I've been comparing your plan to the current one, you know, the one that's being built. Maybe you think I admire the current plan because compared to your 'plan' it looks like a diamond next to a burnt piece of charcoal.

Dac150

Aug 26, 2009, 2:13 PM

the building 4 base which can be converted to the South Tower.

I love how you just throw something like this out there as if it were as easy as flipping on a light switch. Please, don’t be proclaiming these unrealistic proposals with no real basis of which to back them up.

TwinTowersForever

Aug 26, 2009, 3:29 PM

Yes you have. Whether you notice it or not. You still haven't answered any of our questions on how the plan will roll out. We've heard your take on things and from other TTII supporters but we don't have any plans that can give us a sign that your plan is in fact as serious as you make it sound.

I don't think it's unfortunate that you like the TTII site, I plain don't care. What I do care is your nonsense, your dodging our questions with these explanations on how the current plan is a product of the bad politics and whatnot. You also tell us that you've talked to all these important people yet you don't say what they thought and how you tried to convince them that your plan is worth redesigning the entire complex and redoing all these studies and designs.

And I never stated that the current plan is a marble. I've been comparing your plan to the current one, you know, the one that's being built. Maybe you think I admire the current plan because compared to your 'plan' it looks like a diamond next to a burnt piece of charcoal.

There's no need to badger. The TTII is taken very serioulsy by all supporters. Like most people on here, the answers you seek can only be answered by Kenneth Gardner. Whom we arent, and unless he wants to take time out of his busy schedule to answer your questions your going to have to wait until the summit is posted on the 12th. Then he will answer your questions and then some probably.

CGII

Aug 26, 2009, 3:42 PM

There's no need to badger. The TTII is taken very serioulsy by all supporters. Like most people on here, the answers you seek can only be answered by Kenneth Gardner. Whom we arent, and unless he wants to take time out of his busy schedule to answer your questions your going to have to wait until the summit is posted on the 12th. Then he will answer your questions and then some probably.

Can't you see the problems with this logic? You invest all of your trust in this guy and you impair your ability to independently think about and anaylyze this plan. He has you brainwashed!

KENNETH GARDNER KNOWS ALL. HE WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. ALL HAIL KENNETH GARDNER SUPREME LEADER OF WTC2011.

TwinTowersForever

Aug 26, 2009, 3:53 PM

Can't you see the problems with this logic? You invest all of your trust in this guy and you impair your ability to independently think about and anaylyze this plan. He has you brainwashed!

KENNETH GARDNER KNOWS ALL. HE WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. ALL HAIL KENNETH GARDNER SUPREME LEADER OF WTC2011.

I can judge the plan myslf, and have. Again I dont know the fine details in which you require. I dont know the financing plan nor how it can be accomodated with what is built but he is the one who created the plan so therefore he is the one who knows. I'll just go hop on a plane to New York this instant and find Ken and have him give me a detailed synopsis so I can answer your questions.:rolleyes:

We know basics. If you wanna know exactly how many piecies of steel are going to be used or how many water fountains will be in the complex your asking the wrong person. Besides there's plenty of other threads to post in if your just sooo against this.

Dac150

Aug 26, 2009, 4:02 PM

^^^
I still stand by the fact that though you are not an expert of the project, given your devotion and allegiance you should know at least a little about the inner and outer workings of it.

plinko

Aug 26, 2009, 4:20 PM

Morelight,

I've read your responses very carefully and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to resort to name-calling or demands of 'proof' about this or that, I am just of the opinion that your quest seems a bit late.

I agree with you that the current plan is in 'trouble' with regard to the current economy, but that is true of 90% of the commercial projects in New York City right now, let alone the largest and most politicized site. That being said, the economic realities of today would be having just as much effect on the re-worked Twin Towers plan. There just simply isn't an escape from it. How would you feel if right now the TTII plan was underway and they were running short on funds or tenants? What if they only ended up building ONE, on the promise that the other tower would follow at some point? That's basically what we'd probably be looking at right now.

Now I don't have a real emotional attachment to the site like many (I was at the WTC several times before it was destroyed and as an architect they always fascinated me in terms of dehumanizing scale and Yamasaki's very subtle gothic details), but I can understand that a large number of people do. But that group (if indeed there was EVER some cohesive attitude towards rebuilding from them) had ample opportunity to voice their opinion, get themselves in the game, and get their stuff together...in 2002. Once it became obvious that some form of rebuilding would take place the families all seemed to focus on the memorial and the safety factors in the new buildings. Again, nothing that would preclude a rebuilding of the Twin Towers.

Here's where I think things diverged. You (your group) seems to be of the opinion that the politicians, the PA, Silverstein, etc got together then decided against public opinion and will that the Twin Towers wouldn't be rebuilt and a new complex constructed. Did you ever wonder why? There certainly was at the time a large faction of people who did really want to see the towers re-built. But why not then? Political vindictiveness? The PA trying to get out of the real-estate business? Just changing things for the sake of changing things? Well, my take is that a consortium of needs got put on the table, much of them to do with the memorial on the footprints, and the associated site infrastructure which would need to be re-built (and improved upon). This would include rectifying some of the planning mistakes and traffic messes brought upon Lower Manhattan by the superblock. Based on that, you're already at some form of new masterplan that deviates from the previous site design.

Bring on Danny Libeskind. Like his sketches or not, he had an incredibly different vision on the plan of the site (I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDINGS) that incorporated every real player's needs and wants, and most importantly could be built in phases (I don't think I can overstate how important this is in a project of this size, public money or not).

Now you may feel that the selection process was horribly flawed (and maybe it was), but that's what was selected. That was the direction that all the real players (not the armchair architects in the audience) decided upon that would accomplish everybody's goals, including restoring the skyline in a very symbolic way. It might not be twins, but who says it had to be?

So here we are, 8 years after the attacks, but just a few years after the designs for the towers were first released. Slow going? Sure. Politically charged and economically heated? Absolutely. But it's going, slowly but surely. The simple reality is that over the past 4 years there's been so much infrastructure work done below grade that it really does look like not alot has been done. I stayed at the Millenium Hilton 2 years ago overlooking the site and was shocked when I looked at recent pictures vs. mine. At first glance, it didn't seem like alot. But then I looked a little more carefully (I'm an architect, I do this type of thing alot) and noticed a substantial number of things that have gone on. The average member of the public looking at the same photos? No clue. They just want to know what the tower cores are ONLY 125' tall 8 years later. Missing the bigger picture.

I commend your group on your dedication, but as I said, it seems like you guys are about 5-6 years late?

So while we disagree, I am interested in this ‘summit’ of September 9th. What exactly is it? A press release? A meeting of ALL parties (including those who actually can make real decisions)? A site protest? I’m curious, because regardless if it is any of those things, I fail to see how the PA or Silverstein would ever go back and rip all $billions of work in infrastructure, just to placate a small but vocal group. Especially given the current economy?

Your group may very well be correct: that the process was flawed, that the current plan is flawed, etc, etc, but how are you going to legitimately change it AT THIS POINT? Again, we are living in 2009, not 2004…

As far as the flag waving goes…well, to each his own…NOTHING that gets built at that site says anything about patriotism or says anything to Osama. But that’s just my opinion…

CGII

Aug 26, 2009, 4:20 PM

I can judge the plan myslf, and have.

Really? So if you can judge the plan yourself, what can you tell me about the fine details? Or how about the financing? Or how about how the current site can accomodate it?

Again I dont know the fine details in which you require. I dont know the financing plan nor how it can be accomodated with what is built

Oh.

but he is the one who created the plan so therefore he is the one who knows. I'll just go hop on a plane to New York this instant and find Ken and have him give me a detailed synopsis so I can answer your questions.:rolleyes:

So, in conclusion, you are unable to judge the plan for yourself and invest all of your trust and ability to personally analyze the plan in one person. KEN GARDNER KEEPER OF THE SECRETS.

Tell me, is WTC2011 a grassroots development campaign or a cult?

We know basics. If you wanna know exactly how many piecies of steel are going to be used or how many water fountains will be in the complex your asking the wrong person. Besides there's plenty of other threads to post in if your just sooo against this.

I want to know how much it will actually cost, how the site can magically support these towers as it exists and how it is financed. I also want to see more visual representation of the architecture of the site besides one model.

If you give me none of that information there are plenty of reasons to be against this project.

John Hinds

Aug 26, 2009, 4:30 PM

How can any of the TTII people back this guys plans so unflinchingly (going as far as saying things like the current construction work will be stopped this year, and that the current foundation can be used to build replicas of the Twin Towers, and even giving various construction completion dates) when you all now say you know absolutely nothing about what his plans are?

When we've told you the very obvious reasons these buildings can't be built on this site (no matter what his plans are) you turn around and tell us stupid things like they can be built in New Jersey or Queens.

And then you expect us to take you seriously.

You're only undermining your own cause by not listening to people who know more about the world trade center site than yourselves, and then not using that information to make rational judgments about what you have been saying.

TwinTowersForever

Aug 26, 2009, 4:34 PM

Really? So if you can judge the plan yourself, what can you tell me about the fine details? Or how about the financing? Or how about how the current site can accomodate it?

Oh.

So, in conclusion, you are unable to judge the plan for yourself and invest all of your trust and ability to personally analyze the plan in one person. KEN GARDNER KEEPER OF THE SECRETS.

Tell me, is WTC2011 a grassroots development campaign or a cult?

I want to know how much it will actually cost, how the site can magically support these towers as it exists and how it is financed. I also want to see more visual representation of the architecture of the site besides one model.

If you give me none of that information there are plenty of reasons to be against this project.

1. Plan cost is around 10 billion compared to around 20 for the current plan.
2. There's actually more than one model, but what other visual representation would you like? I have a rendering of it in the skyline
http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z300/rhoads2000/TwinTowers-3.jpg
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=224788296&albumID=407325&imageID=871505
3. I've never spoken to ken so how am I supposed to know all this? Honestly its not posted anywhere we've just been assured. I dont think he would lie about what he can do with the TTII, but he summit will provide the answers I assume.
4. Yes its a cult:yes:

plinko

Aug 26, 2009, 4:45 PM

^$10 Billion in 2002 dollars or adjusted for current inflation and construction prices? You do know that construction BIDS (not estimates) are typically only good for 90 days due to materials and labor cost fluctuations right?

Just a question...but you don't have to answer...you don't know...

Dac150

Aug 26, 2009, 4:49 PM

From seeing that rendering the feel of what the originals had is certainly not that same as what is shown in the render. It just looks weird. This plan is not doing what it’s trying to accomplish but on the flipside insulting what was there.

You can build a replica of a Rolls Royce, but it’s not a Rolls Royce.