NEW YORK | Twin Towers of the WTC | 1368/1362 feet | 110 FLOORS | 1972/1973-2001 - Page 17

Roadcruiser1 · #**321** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 2:51 AM**

Out of curiosity. Who else besides me were inspired by those giant towers? I hope I am not the only one that was inspired by the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. The sad thing is those two buildings might not inspire people much anymore. They are gone. People would only see models of them in museums, or see pictures of them. It can't inspire them. They have to see the towers themselves to be inspired by them. So I am not just upset architecturally, but a whole work of art for future generations was wiped out by 9/11.

Chapelo · #**322** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 3:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Out of curiosity. Who else besides me were inspired by those giant towers? I hope I am not the only one that was inspired by the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. The sad thing is those two buildings might not inspire people much anymore. They are gone. People would only see models of them in museums, or see pictures of them. It can't inspire them. They have to see the towers themselves to be inspired by them. So I am not just upset architecturally, but a whole work of art for future generations was wiped out by 9/11.

I grew up in San Diego, which in the late 1970s, early 80s had only a handful of highrises, the tallest of which was about 350 feet. These days, our tallest is 500 feet, but I digress..

Anyway, in 1984, at the age of 7, my dad and I flew to New York City to visit family. It was my first trip outside of San Diego. I'll never forget getting off the plane, once we actually got inside the terminal, I remember looking over at Manhattan and being in complete awe at these two giant silver monoliths, towering over everything else. I happened to ask my dad what they were and he said "They're skyscrapers, and that's the World Trade Center. Not just one, but two of them. They're the second and third tallest buildings in the world!"

The next day, we actually went to the WTC, and I got to stand at the base of them, touch them, stand atop them. It became obvious to me then that these buildings were a showcase of man's prowess; man had conquered the sky (so to speak). From that day on, I became interested in buildings and architecture, even had a brief interlude with architecture school (where I decided that I wasn't creative enough to be an architect.)

But those buildings were the whole reason I ever got into architecture in the first place. They were the first skyscrapers I'd ever seen in person.

Years later, I'd end up working there, but I never did forget that trip in 1984; it truly changed my life.

This picture was taken during that trip, I keep the original print framed above my fireplace.

Lower Manhattan Skyline, 1984 by Chapelo, on Flickr

Roadcruiser1 · #**323** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 4:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chapelo

I grew up in San Diego, which in the late 1970s, early 80s had only a handful of highrises, the tallest of which was about 350 feet. These days, our tallest is 500 feet, but I digress..

Anyway, in 1984, at the age of 7, my dad and I flew to New York City to visit family. It was my first trip outside of San Diego. I'll never forget getting off the plane, once we actually got inside the terminal, I remember looking over at Manhattan and being in complete awe at these two giant silver monoliths, towering over everything else. I happened to ask my dad what they were and he said "They're skyscrapers, and that's the World Trade Center. Not just one, but two of them. They're the second and third tallest buildings in the world!"

The next day, we actually went to the WTC, and I got to stand at the base of them, touch them, stand atop them. It became obvious to me then that these buildings were a showcase of man's prowess; man had conquered the sky (so to speak). From that day on, I became interested in buildings and architecture, even had a brief interlude with architecture school (where I decided that I wasn't creative enough to be an architect.)

But those buildings were the whole reason I ever got into architecture in the first place. They were the first skyscrapers I'd ever seen in person.

Years later, I'd end up working there, but I never did forget that trip in 1984; it truly changed my life.

This picture was taken during that trip, I keep the original print framed above my fireplace.

Lower Manhattan Skyline, 1984 by Chapelo, on Flickr

You shouldn't have had quit becoming an architect. You don't need to be creative to be one. The reason being that there are many architecture forms. You could have had picked modernism as your style of architecture. You don't need fancy things for that just simplicity. That was the type of architecture style the Twin Towers were. Modernism including International Style. Being an architect means I will design something that would catch someone's eye, but beauty isn't that important. Not every skyscrapers need to be the Empire State Building. It could have been a box

.

Chapelo · #**324** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 4:25 AM**

The other thing was I couldn't afford the tuition at Parsons (New School), it was borderline extortion, and this was in 1996/97. I can't even imagine what it'd be now, and I've thought about going back to school and finishing my architecture degree. I'm 34, going on 35 in September, just don't have the creativity I used to.

Amanita · #**325** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 4:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Out of curiosity. Who else besides me were inspired by those giant towers? I hope I am not the only one that was inspired by the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. The sad thing is those two buildings might not inspire people much anymore. They are gone. People would only see models of them in museums, or see pictures of them. It can't inspire them. They have to see the towers themselves to be inspired by them. So I am not just upset architecturally, but a whole work of art for future generations was wiped out by 9/11.

I sure as heck was inspired by the Twin Towers, they were two of my favorite skyscrapers, and of all the skyscrapers I've ever been ass over teakettle in love with, they were among the first, along with Empire State Building.

Those towers while they stood were an inspiration to millions. Some were inspired to educate themselves and become professional successes. Others were motivated to use them as part of epic performance art- Philip Petit was only one of those- they've been climbed from, and parachuted from, as well.
And artists of all stripes were inspired by them as well- I've got drawings of them done well before 9/11, in Avatar form.

What makes me positively furious now is the people who insist that the Twin Tower's image is forever ruined, that using their image as inspiration for creative works is now verboten, out of some misguided notion of "respect".
Forget about tribute or remembrance, any artistic depiction of them now is disrespectful. I got this on a cosplay forum once, when I said that I had even once thought of doing a Samhain/Halloween costume depicting the towers as angels (as one couple in NYC have already done- their picture is on the internet)

Well, screw the self righteous, self appointed guardians of 9/11 and their censorship. I drew the following image. Mind you, it's a base character sketch as opposed to full artistic composition, but I like how it turned out, and one of these days, I am still tempted to make the robes (decorated with the WTC's architectural motifs) as a form of tribute in wearable art.

http://ladyamanita.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d36gm3v

I just linked to the gallery page, instead of posting the image- it's freaking huge.

There's another reason why these self appointed censors piss me off so much- let's face it, there's lots of ways to cope with a tragic event. Some people are talkers, some prefer to stay silent and stoic, others such as myself are creators. We express our feelings through creative works. And for somebody to try and declare that their method of coping or expression is the only respectful/acceptable/decent one, that is just arrogance of the worst sort. Worse, is when the censors try to play a "privelege" or pecking order game- "I'm an American and I'm offended!" or "I'm a "whatever", how dare you say anything?" Yes, I have been told that as a Canadian, I have no right to an opinion, let alone creative expression. And some people are so self righteous that even ideas that have nothing to do with 9/11 will set them off. I was even told by one individual that I'm wrong for doing costumes depicting ANY NYC skyscraper, because it could remind people of something. (For one example of skyscraper-costuming, see my One Penn Plaza thread)

Roadcruiser1 · #**326** Posted **Mar 7, 2012, 5:15 AM**

Yeah. I saw that happen a lot. When Fringe featured the Twin Towers to end their season 1 was an example.

• Video Link

Some people called it disrespectful to even feature or show sights of the towers, but many people rushed to the show's defense because they showed the towers in a meaningful way. Another reason why people defended it was that it gave them hope that if another dimension exists maybe the Twin Towers are still standing, and maybe the people that died on 9/11 are still alive in the other dimension living and still working those towers.

Roadcruiser1 · #**327** Posted **Mar 8, 2012, 1:31 AM**

Oh yeah I found this for people that didn't watch this. This is a documentary about the birth, life, and death of the Twin Towers by the show The American Experience on PBS. I watched it and it's pretty good.

• Video Link

THE BIG APPLE · #**328** Posted **Mar 11, 2012, 5:43 AM**

Time

The cool Times Mag cover for 9/11 a few months ago.

THE BIG APPLE · #**329** Posted **Mar 11, 2012, 5:48 AM**

Business Insider

A photo that I don't think I've ever seen before. Compared to today or even prior to 9/11 you probably couldn't tell the difference.

Chapelo · #**330** Posted **Mar 11, 2012, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

Business Insider

A photo that I don't think I've ever seen before. Compared to today or even prior to 9/11 you probably couldn't tell the difference.

Here's another one:

Scanned from a Port Authority pamphlet documenting the construction of the towers. The picture itself was taken in mid-1969.

ethereal_reality · #**331** Posted **Mar 11, 2012, 7:06 PM**

Wow! Those two photographs are great. The first one makes me long for the days when you could actually see the Barclay Vesey Building.

jd3189 · #**332** Posted **Mar 12, 2012, 12:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chapelo

Here's another one:

Scanned from a Port Authority pamphlet documenting the construction of the towers. The picture itself was taken in mid-1969.

There was a highrise there already? I originally thought that Radio Row was just a bunch of lowrises?

Jasoncw · #**333** Posted **Mar 12, 2012, 12:52 AM**

That's funny, if the street grid and those remaining buildings there would have been kept, the plaza around the two towers would have been a well scaled urban one.

ThisSideofSteinway · #**334** Posted **Mar 12, 2012, 1:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189

There was a highrise there already? I originally thought that Radio Row was just a bunch of lowrises?

That's the Hudson Terminal Building (which actually had a twin of its own). Aside from those buildings, though, it was generally low-rise.

http://www.shorpy.com/node/11334

EDIT: Here it is from Cortlandt and West Streets.

THE BIG APPLE · #**335** Posted **Mar 12, 2012, 3:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189

There was a highrise there already? I originally thought that Radio Row was just a bunch of lowrises?

A the time it was fair play. They were 19/20th Century buildings, being demolished in the 20th Century. Ofcourse today the Radio Row area would be a landmark neighborhood, since the first radio tubes were sold there. I'm glad Radio Row was gone, because the Financial District had to expand.

BTW the Hudson Terminal was built in July of 1909, and was only 62 years old at the time of demolition.

JSsocal · #**336** Posted **Mar 12, 2012, 4:43 AM**

^^^Yknow I don't think it would be landmarked, nothing there really of architectural significance, and given its proximity to wall street there's no way the city would commercially justify the decision given the prime real estate value. Take note at many of the smaller buildings downtown that have recently been demolished even in this day in age. If it wasnt the WTC being built other office buildings would surely have been built there in the area over the next 30 years.
Now the hudson terminal buildings might have been converted into condos in this day in age, however despite their age these buildings weren't really plagued by small floorplates in the way the singer building or some of the other downtown skyscrapers were, so it could potentially have remained office space.

But I agree with the notion Jason posted that if the site was constricted to the western half, the complex would have been much more successful in the way of urban context, and also the offset of the towers would seem more justified in terms of responding to the site.

THE BIG APPLE · #**337** Posted **Mar 12, 2012, 5:05 AM**

But think about it. 1909. 2012. 103 years. If the Hudson Terminal was never demolished, and that's a BIG IF, then it would be landmarked. But I agree that it was PRIME real estate, and would've inevitably been demolished, for something else. If the WTC was built to the west, it would've only encouraged others to use the land to the east.

06hdfxdwg · #**338** Posted **Mar 13, 2012, 8:06 PM**

jd3189 · #**339** Posted **Mar 18, 2012, 12:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

But think about it. 1909. 2012. 103 years. If the Hudson Terminal was never demolished, and that's a BIG IF, then it would be landmarked. But I agree that it was PRIME real estate, and would've inevitably been demolished, for something else. If the WTC was built to the west, it would've only encouraged others to use the land to the east.

Agreed. The complex would have looked very urban if the eastern side was the way it was. Maybe the Twins would have been a lot taller, but the rest of the WTC wouldn't be a real large oasis from the busy city.

THE BIG APPLE · #**340** Posted **Mar 18, 2012, 1:31 AM**

Also while the Hudson Terminal was office and the current Hotel Penn is a hotel, they strike an architectural resemblance. But the Terminal was built in 1909, and Hotel Penn in 1919. But the Hotel Penn is going to be demolished, now think about that. A building in NYC has to be atleast 30 years old, and has to have some sort of historic, architectural, or social value, or innovation to be a landmark.