NEW YORK | 175 Greenwich St. | 1,079 FT | 80 FLOORS

[brian.odonnell20]

its not even that i don't like the design, even though its kinda bland and unoriginal, its that its place in the downtown skyline is simply a waste of a 1240 foot tower; it is forgotten sooooo easily with 1 2 and 4 around it.

[Don098]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Guys, I think it will come out to look much better at the end. Personally, I like the design of this building. I'm not in love with it, but I like the way it contrasts the rest of the WTC a bit. I can't imagine anything better being built if this wasn't to go through, which is 0% unlikely anyways

Perhaps...I don't understand why people always say, "It'll look better once it's built" as if the design will magically change it's appearance. Sure, virtually imperceptible changes like glass color and scale, but not the overall design. When people express their opinions that they don't like the design, that means the fundamental, overall, unchangeable look. They're never, ever talking about the minute details that will change from the renders to real life.

I like the contrast too - the exoskeleton is cool - but I really, really struggle with the spires. I'm glad it's flanked by WTC2 and WTC4 to hide it a little.

You have to keep in mind that this entire complex is a major compromise for me personally. I was in love with the original design that Lebeskind did (except for the memorial because that was hideous) and I was honestly appalled when I saw the latest renderings for the first time. It's taken years for me to get used to it...I have extremely high expectations for prominent NY skyscrapers so I guess I'm as equally easy to disappoint. Just trying to put my opinions in context...

To me, great architecture - and great art for that matter - transcends the need for explanation (i.e. oh that's just modernist, minimalism - whatever). If it's truly something special, nearly everyone will recognize it. You don't need to sit down with someone and explain that the Chrysler building is beautiful, or that the Beatles wrote good music, or that the Mona Lisa is a great, intriguing piece of art. To me, that's what the new WTC should have done, especially with the thousands of submissions in the architectrual contest. The current WTC doesn't even get close to that level, IMO.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Don098

Perhaps...I don't understand why people always say, "It'll look better once it's built" as if the design will magically change it's appearance.

Most likely because renderings and reality are often different things. I've changed my own opinion on buildings once reality was able to present itself. Even the best of renderings cannot duplicate reality. And that works both ways, even if the design is virtually untouched or changed. Some buildings turn out not as nice as they would appeart to in renderings. It's just a reality.

I'm glad it's flanked by WTC2 and WTC4 to hide it a little.

To each his own. Some people complain about tower 4. I don't have a problem with any of the WTC towers, and this one in particular is once again my favorite on site. Some people say it doesn't "look like New York", as if there is only one style of skyscraper that should ever be allowed construction. If it doesn't "look" like New York, maybe that's all the more reason for it to be built, a rebuke to all of the critics who lable the towers as bland and predictable.

[NYguy]

Looking back at some of the older renderings...

[sterlippo1]

i like all the towers as well but to me if there is a complaint about any of them, it should about Tower 4 like NYGuy said

[JayPro]

I'm going to reiterate what I said some time ago:

Tower 4 is a deliberately minimalist design in homage to the same approach that Yamasaki-san took with the original World Trade Center towers. The Japanese spiritual eye, as it were, tends to view minimalism in this respect as a tangible manifestation of calmness and serenity. To wit: Quiet your mind to truly appreciate the details.

Tower Three takes this concept and adds a combination of restrained Gothic-style architecture and urbanity befitting its environs.

[meh_cd]

I wonder if STR can answer a question: what will the exoskeleton be covered with? Stainless steel like at Tower 1 and the original Twins, or some other kind of material? I'm mainly concerned about the large X braces on the east and west sides.

[brian.odonnell20]

Originally Posted by Don098

To me, great architecture - and great art for that matter - transcends the need for explanation (i.e. oh that's just modernist, minimalism - whatever). If it's truly something special, nearly everyone will recognize it. You don't need to sit down with someone and explain that the Chrysler building is beautiful, or that the Beatles wrote good music, or that the Mona Lisa is a great, intriguing piece of art. To me, that's what the new WTC should have done, especially with the thousands of submissions in the architectrual contest. The current WTC doesn't even get close to that level, IMO.

Wow, what a great point. A lot of modern and postmodern architecture nowadays have much less substance and actual, concrete quality than ever before. Why do all of these "starchitects" feel the need to design something that needs to be explained and have a certain point or motif, instead of just plain beautiful, contextual architecture. It seems like no one knows how to be original these days without it being overdone, tacky, and complicated. The best buildings are ones that make you go and say, "wow, that's a sweet building," which is why wtc 3 and 4, among many other u/c's and proposals are simply not good looking buildings, regardless of whatever purpose or image they have. In my opinion of course

[STR]

Originally Posted by meh_cd

I wonder if STR can answer a question: what will the exoskeleton be covered with? Stainless steel like at Tower 1 and the original Twins, or some other kind of material? I'm mainly concerned about the large X braces on the east and west sides.

The Twin Towers were covered in anodized aluminum. Two interesting stories about the cladding. First, was that Alcoa pitched a specific alloy that met all the structural and cost needs, but was also a light shade of an unusual color. Minorou Yamaski responded with "You aren't seriously propsing we make these two large buildings pink?" The second is, after getting overly sauced during a working lunch with contractors and the Port Authority, Yamaski took everyone out to the WTC construction site and insisted that one of the panels recently installed ~40 floors up was off color and needed to be removed. After 2 minutes of

"That one?"

"NO! THAT one!"

A PA official told Yamasaki he was too damn drunk. The issue was never brought up again.

As for the Richard Rogers Tower 3...I don't have that info. Stainless steel was or is being used in Tower 1, 2 & 7. That's what I put in the model. It could end up being aluminum panels. Fortunately, a trivial change.

Sidenote: if you're going to ask me a question, don't EVER refer to the Yamasaki Trade Center buildings as "the Twins." That specific term didn't come about until after the buildings were destroyed, and regardless of that, they weren't people and should not be referred to as such. It's a pet peeve of mine. Twin Towers, WTC Classic, Yamasaki's towers, or anything else is acceptable.

[Lecom]

Honestely, I think this will look mind-blowingly spectacular once it finishes. When 7WTC's design first surfaced, people were like "meh... a box", and look what we got. This is something of equal caliber, yet on a much greater scale and with an even more refined design.

In the meanwhile, it's entertaining to read all the "ugly duckling" posts.

[Dac150]

This building is going to blow minds, simply because this city has never seen anything like it. I think many underestimate how elaborate and bold this building will be in design and presence.

[Don098]

Originally Posted by Lecom

In the meanwhile, it's entertaining to read all the "ugly duckling" posts.

Please don't be patronizing, moderator. There is no right or wrong when it comes to people's opinions, especially about art...

Originally Posted by JayPro

The Japanese spiritual eye, as it were, tends to view minimalism in this respect as a tangible manifestation of calmness and serenity.

Cool. I do appreciate that my personal artists tastes are shaped by my perspective, so thanks for explaining the architect's intentions. However, it still kind of looks like a regular American office building to me, as it will to most members of the general public. Again, it gets back to my point about great art...

[Aleks]

he wasn't patronizing anything. not sure how you got that out of his post, but haha, look at all those ugly duckling posts!

as for the tower, i'm not really sure whether we're talking about T4 or T3. This thread is all over the place! but i'm on the side that likes this tower, it's actually my favorite of all four. like others said, it's a bit of gothic modernism. something not seen ever in america, it's truly an unique tower and i am more than happy that it got chosen. and the amount of details is something not seen often (excluding the Times Building), and creates a fantastic divider of the sleek facades of Tower 2 and 4.


by the way, let's keep Tower 4 critiques in the proper thread. it creates confusion that is unnecessary.

Originally Posted by STR

Sidenote: if you're going to ask me a question, don't EVER refer to the Yamasaki Trade Center buildings as "the Twins." That specific term didn't come about until after the buildings were destroyed, and regardless of that, they weren't people and should not be referred to as such. It's a pet peeve of mine. Twin Towers, WTC Classic, Yamasaki's towers, or anything else is acceptable.

that's quite a pet peeve you got there.

[STR]

^I don't think it's that unusual. Probably shouldn't have capitalized "ever," but meh. I figure I can't kill the term entirely, but if I can at least declare that I won't respond to it any more.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Aleks

i'm not really sure whether we're talking about T4 or T3. This thread is all over the place! but i'm on the side that likes this tower, it's actually my favorite of all four.

by the way, let's keep Tower 4 critiques in the proper thread. it creates confusion that is unnecessary.

Exactly. The bottom line is that some people will like this building, some won't. Just from what I've seen though, most people seem to like it, and I don't mean just here on this board. You can't please 100% of the people all the time, you never will, so its natural there are critics.

[CoolCzech]

Originally Posted by Don098
Perhaps...I don't understand why people always say, "It'll look better once it's built" as if the design will magically change it's appearance.

For one thing, size has its own aesthetic. Sheer size and height alone are magnificent in their own right, and this tower will have them.

[CGII]

Richard Rogers knows what he's doing. I have a few reservations about tower 3 but knowing his canon of work I blame that reservation on the renderings right now.


EricFirley on flickr.com

Caspar B. on flickr.com

[patriotizzy]

^^^^ Woah, show us great pictures but don't tell us where they're located -_-

Cool designs too. This guy knows how to make sweet, complicated-looking architecture.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

^^^^ Woah, show us great pictures but don't tell us where they're located -_-

They're a part of the Potsdamer Platz redevelopment in Berlin.

[Lecom]

Yowza. Great photos. Thanks for this reminder of the quality of finishes we're about to get with this tower.