Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1
The whole World Trade Center site is now a tragedy. The entire project is just one big mess, and the site will be too. First of all the security measures that will be placed will be insane. That already will push away the street life since cars will not be able to drive into the site much leaving the streets empty. Pedestrians walking around the site and working the building will be monitored 24/7 which is just terrible. I mean you can always place security measures, but that is just way too much security to be considered normal. The second change that went wrong is the restaurant. What do you mean it's going to be unprofitable? I rather eat in a restaurant up in the sky than anywhere else. The third change is the base. Even though it might look more like the Twin Towers former base after looking at farther pictures it does not fit in with the design at all. It's completely covered in concrete for security measures which I also deem parnoid and stupid resulting in a loss of useable floor space. The third and final change is the mast which is now stripped to nothing but bare bones. I mean what the hell? This site is a complete mess, and someone has to come and clean it up and talk the Port Authority and Durst straight one more time. This is the World Trade Center. It's not the World Security Center, not the World Ugly Center, it is the WORLD TRADE CENTER! Get it right Durst and Port Authority or don't get involved and let the people do it.
Someone who has been pushed beyond his anger limit.
I lurk this thread daily but seldom post. Time to post. I think you're overreacting.
1. Reducing/restricting automobiles is a good thing that will make life safer and easier for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users (who will make up 98% of the volume anyway). Urban planners (and other experts who have been studying transportation for decades) are increasingly moving cities around the world away from automobile dependency for a reason! Fewer cars is a good thing. It will improve street life, not the other way around!
2. The level of site security and pedestrian surveillance : we're not there yet. The site isn't even open/finished yet. When everything is said and done, if there is oppressive airport-like security, then we'll talk. I strongly doubt we'll get to anywhere near what you're proposing.
3. The spire is indeed a loss, I won't argue with that, but I think the spire issue should be kept in perspective. From an urban perspective, what matters most in any development is the street level. What happens 100 floors in the sky is of little importance to quality of life. Again, I like the spire and I hope they make it, but if we're discussing urban planning and quality of the street-level environment, the spire is irrelevant.
4. The base of WTC 1 is concrete and results in a loss of floor space? Really? In the grand scheme of the overall floor space of the whole site, we're talking what, 1%? If that? Given what occurred a decade ago on the site, a sturdy base is a sensible consideration. As for how it looks, can we please wait until everything is 100% finished before bashing it?
I think the WTC site, overall, is a well-designed urban space. It's pedestrian oriented, it features transit prominently, it has great public spaces, etc. As for the buildings themselves, they will be landmarks in New York for generations to come.