Quote:
Originally Posted by PhyllisJerry71
It’s not supposed to be an “icon,” it’s supposed to be part of a larger complex, of which 1WTC and the memorial are supposed to be the iconic elements. The design changes to this tower have resulted in a building that relates much better to the other parts of the complex, particularly the minimalist form of 4WTC next door. So many people criticize this tower for being unlike Rogers’s other work, but a typical dainty (for lack of a better descriptor) Rogers building would have been extremely out of place here. Yes, simplifying the design also benefited Silverstein and the Port Authority by making the building cheaper to construct, but the extra money would have been wasted on features that would have made it look overly busy and a poor relation to the other buildings in the complex. This tower as built is unapologetic about its bigness, as is appropriate for the scale of the WTC.
|
I agree with most of this, though I would have preferred this tower retained it's greater height, mainly because I think it's too similar in size to tower 4. If tower 4 had been on another sight, say tower 5, it would have more room to breath on its own. But still, this is primarily an office building that is a part of a larger complex, the World Trade Center. As far as the "spires", I could take it or leave it. Some people seem to want to have it both ways, depending on who you speak to, there are either too many spire elements or not enough on the city skyline. I don't think the WTC needs more, but it wouldn't hurt things overall. I'm pleased with what we have here, there is so much going on in this city, so much to compete with. This complex is still a force to be reckoned with, and when Tower 2 is complete it will become much more clear what we have here.