WTC Site

What do you propose they do with the WTC site?

I think they should rebuild the twin towers, and make them a little bigger. Like 115 stories, then New York will regain the title of the Tallest building in the world. I think it would also boost the economy, with more tourism, etc.
Instead of just putting a memorial there, they can put the memorial inside the the new buildings


I've talked to some relatives that live in the NYC area and they all said that if Mayor Bloomberg doesn't rebuild or make new towers in the lower manhatten area then he's loosing many peoples votes

I don't think they could rebuild them on the present site- it is too eavily damaged, the WTC should be in a Pentagon-like building, short but large

i'd rather see them bigger...
lower manhatten doesn't need a small building, they need more space... that would make it boring
The skyline with the twin towers was amazing

i'm pretty sure they can rebuild the same spot, cause there have been talks about rebuilding the twin towers in the same spot.

plus land can't really get damaged can it? and they've cleaned up most of the mess

Well I voted for a memorial, but now that I think about it I suppose they could put the memorial inside the buildings, they would be big enough :D

I think a memorial would be the best way to go. There is a possibility that another dumbfuck will try to do the same thing again if another tall building was built.:(

if i had them rebuilt new york would be a no fly zone to planes helicopters aloud with proper authorisation and i'd have miniguns and missle launcher on top or a laser or something or maybe a giant net and electromagnetic pulse

Originally posted by b16a2si
I think a memorial would be the best way to go. There is a possibility that another dumbfuck will try to do the same thing again if another tall building was built.:(

there are tall buildings being built all accross the world.... just because of what happened on 9/11 they're not stopping. That would show the terrorists that they have won, i don't want them changing our lives.

something like that isn't ever going to happen again, now we have tighter security, it just won't happen, especially since now pilots will fight to the death against terrorists (like on the pensylvania flight) people aren't just going to sit by and watch.

The government has to look for unexpected things to happen with terrorists..... now that we know something like that could happen, we're more prepared for it.

The sears tower in Chicago is still full of people working... that building is a bit taller than the twin towers. And London, England is building the tallest building in europe soon, it's going to be called "Shardes of Glass" or something like that.

Aswell as all the reall tall buildings being built in Asia.... They're around the hight of the twin towers aswell

If nothing's stopping the rest of the world, I don't think we should just stand by
America is all about building big, and we have to stick to that


I think all planes should have over rideable (is that a word?) controls, so that air traffic controllers on the ground, can over ride the controls if something is going on... then control the plane from the ground

Presumably the land still belongs to the same people who owned it before the attack.It should be completely up to them what goes on the site.

I think a memorial should be put in its place

being from NY myself, id prefer if they were re-built in its present location, its just too wierd to look out my window at that void in the skyline.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how can the mayor dictate exactly whats going to be built on that spot? I didn't think the city owned the buildings or the site. Sure it can put zoning restrictions, but its not ultimately their call to make.

If I had a say in it, I'd like to see the buildings replaced with a memorial for the fallen officers and firefighters put in a prominent position.

I think it would be cool to rebuild the WTC on the same spot and have some kind of memorial out in a plaza. And instill a no-fly zone within a certain distance of the towers. I have never been to NY but I can only guess for the people that live there, having that big empty space in the skyline leaves a big empty space in everyone's hearts :( As far as the "ground" being damaged...it's not so much the dirt but all the concrete and reinforcements, plumbing/sewage lines, subway rails, etc etc. is what is going to have to be rebuilt again too. With the damage done to what still exists, it is not something they can just patch up again...I think they would have to tear it all down and rebuild it in it entirety. I think it took 7 years or so for the original WTC to be built :confused:

Originally posted by YogsVR4
Correct me if I'm wrong, but how can the mayor dictate exactly whats going to be built on that spot? I didn't think the city owned the buildings or the site. Sure it can put zoning restrictions, but its not ultimately their call to make.

If I had a say in it, I'd like to see the buildings replaced with a memorial for the fallen officers and firefighters put in a prominent position.

I don't think the mayor can dictate what goes on that site, but now with what has happened I am sure he can have more of a say in it than not. Also if there is any funding from the government as to what ends up going there, they will have a say since it is their money being used. But the gov't and the owner would have to agree upon it.

The mayor has a big say in what happens there....
i also heard that they might use some airline bail out money

build a memorial park. where you can go and relax:cool:

Well the best idea is like Jimmy said, a pentagon-lke building about 20 stories high, the NYC skyline looks far better without the towers.

Plus of course there has to be a memorial

Originally posted by Bean Bandit
build a memorial park. where you can go and relax:cool:

but dude, you can relax in central park can't you? just as long as it's not past 6:00 pm...then the freaks come out......

I like the idea of a nation-wide memorial design competition w/ the final design options voted on by the WTC victims families. I definately think a VERY BIG memorial is in order.

Originally posted by b16a2si
I think a memorial would be the best way to go. There is a possibility that another dumbfuck will try to do the same thing again if another tall building was built.:(

Another attack against a tall building is NOT gonna happen. I can barely take a shit at an airport without some FBI agent trying to test it for explosives.

dig deep make a massive hole

then rebuild the buildings twice as tall above the hole

when someone aims for the building with a missile or something


the building drops down into the hole and then have mini guns and AA Missiles, and anti missile defense systems n stuff ..... Maybe

#!%#%!%#!^&)(*!)(*@#$ :mad: I just wrote a decent sized post, but AF is always givin me a "The server is too busy at the moment"

damn it.....


check out www.teamtwintowers.org
they have some interesting stuff in the "Why Rebuild?" section
I pretty much agree with what they say

"Leaving the world's most valuable real estate idle will have a devastating effect on the New York City economy"

There are alotta interesting websites about this

www.newyorkcityskyline.org --> forum that discusses the subject


*Edit*
Here's just the yahoo page that has all of the sites

http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/U_S__States/New_York/Cities/New_York/Entertainment_and_Arts/Architecture/Buildings_and_Monuments/World_Trade_Center/Rebuilding_Process/

Yeah I rekon they should rebuild them, atleast one story taller. Just too shove it in the face of the terroists that no matter what they do. The West is still stronger.

sarujin

Originally posted by gang$tarr


there are tall buildings being built all accross the world.... just because of what happened on 9/11 they're not stopping. That would show the terrorists that they have won, i don't want them changing our lives.

something like that isn't ever going to happen again, now we have tighter security, it just won't happen, especially since now pilots will fight to the death against terrorists (like on the pensylvania flight) people aren't just going to sit by and watch.

The government has to look for unexpected things to happen with terrorists..... now that we know something like that could happen, we're more prepared for it.

The sears tower in Chicago is still full of people working... that building is a bit taller than the twin towers. And London, England is building the tallest building in europe soon, it's going to be called "Shardes of Glass" or something like that.

Aswell as all the reall tall buildings being built in Asia.... They're around the hight of the twin towers aswell

If nothing's stopping the rest of the world, I don't think we should just stand by
America is all about building big, and we have to stick to that


I think all planes should have over rideable (is that a word?) controls, so that air traffic controllers on the ground, can over ride the controls if something is going on... then control the plane from the ground

[list=a]
Okay, think about it yes there are a lot of tall buildings and what happened, did so for a reason. So claiming that there are a lot of other tall buildings around dosen't quite work. In Kuala Lumpur the world's tallest buildings currently stand, and it has put the city on the map, but nobody has any major issues with Kuala Lumpur. The WTC was an easy target no matter how you slice it, and however unfortunate it is to say. The US has some major issues with other countries.
I tihnk we should build larger buildings in there place, but not as a reminder. The WTC was actually critized for many years by architects, so using an already 'dull' design wouldn't work, but may have some emotional appeal.
Sorry to say, your idea won't work. An airport maybe at tops has 20 miles of visibility in which any aircraft can be seen. Even if the system could be employed, you would need to set up hundreds of stations which could control these planes.
Lastly, the cost issue, billions were lost in the incident and billions more will need to be spent in order to repair what can be repaired. So I'd like to see a new set of towers, but realistically a park would work better than anything else.
[/list=a]

Originally posted by Porsche


[list=a]
Sorry to say, your idea won't work. An airport maybe at tops has 20 miles of visibility in which any aircraft can be seen. Even if the system could be employed, you would need to set up hundreds of stations which could control these planes.
Lastly, the cost issue, billions were lost in the incident and billions more will need to be spent in order to repair what can be repaired. So I'd like to see a new set of towers, but realistically a park would work better than anything else.
[/list=a]

I just meant if they could do something like that it would be good, if they could control the plane from the control tower (they don't need to see it to control it)

And by putting new large Towers up that will help new yorks economy and tax revenue, so by putting small buildings or a memorial in their place the city would be loosing LOTS of money. So cost is on the new towers side.
The Twin Towers got something like $40 million a year just from people going on the observation deck, also all the taxes from the shops at the bottem. Not to mention that area is the most expensive real estate in New York, so the government/city makes alot of money of the towers.

Well, I just watched a wonderful show on TLC. (Replay Schedule) (http://tlc.discovery.com/schedule/series.jsp?series=5145) It had computer animations of exactly why the buildings failed, as well as interviews with a lot of people. One was the man who leased the WTC buildings just 6 weeks prior to 9/11. He signed a 10 year contract, and one of the provisions of the contract was that in case of a disaster, buildings of some sort would be rebuilt. He will recieve 7-8 billion from Ins. to rebuild, and they are currently considering several designs, all of which would include a memorial of some sort.
There were actually 4 shows, one with the history of the WTC, then the collapse, then the pentagon history, then a show on how the pentagon partially collapsed and is being rebuilt. If possible I would recommend that everyone watch these shows, if not tape them. They were very, very informative and fascinating.

boingo makes a good point, I saw the documentry and watch in awe, they woulde NEVER have been allowed to be built had they been in NZ, mainly because our buildings have to be able to withstand major earthquakes, lets hope they build them with a totally different structure and make them llok more modern, for in my opinion the Towers were the ugliest things to disgrace any city's skyline.........I hope for some shiny aluminium and a more rounded look

Originally posted by Moss1O6GTi
[B]boingo makes a good point, I saw the documentry and watch in awe, they woulde NEVER have been allowed to be built had they been in NZ, mainly because our buildings have to be able to withstand major earthquakes,.../B]
They were built to withstand 100+ mph winds, and were built to withstand a boeing 707 (the largest plane at the time). The political climate was very different then, and they thought the only way a plane would hit the towers is if it were flying slowly, lost in the fog. That's what the building was built for...no one thought that it would be such humongous planes flying so fast with so much fuel. Even after the first hit, people thought it was accidental. We're so naieve, sometimes.

hindsight is always greater than foresight.

Originally posted by boingo82

They were built to withstand 100+ mph winds, and were built to withstand a boeing 707 (the largest plane at the time). The political climate was very different then, and they thought the only way a plane would hit the towers is if it were flying slowly, lost in the fog. That's what the building was built for...no one thought that it would be such humongous planes flying so fast with so much fuel. Even after the first hit, people thought it was accidental. We're so naieve, sometimes.


Damn, you beat me to it.

I saw all the shows on TLC. A great channel.

I also have a question, I hope somebody cna put forth the 100% tuth rather than my knowledge. I watched another show on TLC the other day called Superstructres, featuring the Boeing 747. From the boeing website, its very first flight was on Feb. 9, 1969 only 16 months after being concieved. The WTC complex (Twin towers specifically) were completed in 1970 (Tower 1) and 1972 (Tower 2). Also, when the B-25 hit The Empire state building in 1944 or 1945 one can possibly include military aircraft rather than just commerical. At the time the C-5 Galaxy was much larger (and still is) than any aircraft ever built. First flight 6/30/68 (This is just used a size reference, it would be doubtful that a C-5 would fly anywhere near NYC) So, military aircraft were much larger than the 707. I guess my question is, with this knowledge (At least
So I guess the question is, why were these aircraft not taken into acocunt? I have solid facts (See the history of both aircraft) that prove these planes were operational before the towers were completed? I don't know if anybody can give me a good answer, but the 747 was flying before the completion of the towers and was designed and concieved albeit about the same time as the them.

Originally posted by Porsche
Damn, you beat me to it.

I saw all the shows on TLC. A great channel.

I also have a question, I hope somebody cna put forth the 100% tuth rather than my knowledge. I watched another show on TLC the other day called Superstructres, featuring the Boeing 747. From the boeing website, its very first flight was on Feb. 9, 1969 only 16 months after being concieved. The WTC complex (Twin towers specifically) were completed in 1970 (Tower 1) and 1972 (Tower 2). Also, when the B-25 hit The Empire state building in 1944 or 1945 one can possibly include military aircraft rather than just commerical. At the time the C-5 Galaxy was much larger (and still is) than any aircraft ever built. First flight 6/30/68 (This is just used a size reference, it would be doubtful that a C-5 would fly anywhere near NYC) So, military aircraft were much larger than the 707. I guess my question is, with this knowledge (At least
So I guess the question is, why were these aircraft not taken into acocunt? I have solid facts (See the history of both aircraft) that prove these planes were operational before the towers were completed? I don't know if anybody can give me a good answer, but the 747 was flying before the completion of the towers and was designed and concieved albeit about the same time as the them.

Of course I am not an expert on any of this, but the towers were completed in 1970 and 1972 - which means they were designed YEARS before the 747 was. Groundbreaking wass August 5, 1966, which means the Boeing 747 was concieved AFTER the towers were already designed and under construction. Yes, the planes were operational before the towers were completed, but you can't spend years designing a building, work on building it for 18 months, and then completely redesign it because of a new airplane or two.

Info on groundbreaking and completion dates from www.greatbuildings.com (http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html)

Thanks, that's just what I wanted to hear. Seriously, no sarcasm.

Originally posted by Moss1O6GTi
boingo makes a good point, I saw the documentry and watch in awe, they woulde NEVER have been allowed to be built had they been in NZ, mainly because our buildings have to be able to withstand major earthquakes, lets hope they build them with a totally different structure and make them llok more modern, for in my opinion the Towers were the ugliest things to disgrace any city's skyline.........I hope for some shiny aluminium and a more rounded look

You think they were ugly!? Have you ever seen them in person?

I think they made New York look bigger, and I like the classic design, all the buildings now have to be all round and shiny..... the twin towers were plain and tasteful and worked for the business district.

I think they looked amazing from accross the water, they just reached for the sky and were like twice as tall as every other building

Sure they're not as artsy as most new modern buildings, but I liked them.

I'm pretty sure they could have withstood a large earthquake (though that would never happen in NYC), but the fire where the planes hit melted the steel beams and the weight of the top just crashed down. They said fires temperatures reached over a 1000*C i think

People praise the Petronas Towers so much.... I think they should judge height of buildings by the highest occupied floor.
The only reason they are the tallest buildings is because of the spires, they're 88 stories, 22 less than the Twins and Sears Tower
it's cheating i tell you :D





cover up the twin towers with your hand and NY looks so much smaller from the hudson river..... so sad :(

http://data2.artifice.com/gbc/images/cid_1001209136_IM000364.600.jpg

Originally posted by gang$tarr
People praise the Petronas Towers so much.... I think they should judge height of buildings by the highest occupied floor.
The only reason they are the tallest buildings is because of the spires, they're 88 stories, 22 less than the Twins and Sears Tower
it's cheating i tell you :D





cover up the twin towers with your hand and NY looks so much smaller from the hudson river..... so sad :(

http://data2.artifice.com/gbc/images/cid_1001209136_IM000364.600.jpg

OK Yes I had seen them in real life, back in 1998, I did think they were ugly, they didn't fit in with the rest of the city.

Just because some terrorists decided to park panes in 'em, doesn't change my opinion

Also, what are those 4 buildings with the green roofs????? I have seen a lot of them lately and am just curious about them.

Looks at my sig and you will see how a cities skyline should look, with modern buildings that will stay looking modern for years to come, they all blend n with Aucklands "City of the future" look, The new WTC should be designed accordingly.

Originally posted by Moss1O6GTi


OK Yes I had seen them in real life, back in 1998, I did think they were ugly, they didn't fit in with the rest of the city.

Just because some terrorists decided to park panes in 'em, doesn't change my opinion

Also, what are those 4 buildings with the green roofs????? I have seen a lot of them lately and am just curious about them.

Looks at my sig and you will see how a cities skyline should look, with modern buildings that will stay looking modern for years to come, they all blend n with Aucklands "City of the future" look, The new WTC should be designed accordingly.

i respect your opinion, they aren't a spectacular design by any means but I liked them.

Those buildings around it with the green roofs are the other World Trade Centre buildings..... WTC 3, WTC 4, etc.

anyou're wondering, I think the roofs are green becuase it is oxidized copper, we got the same thing here in Ottawa (Capital of Canada), Shiny for a year Green for 100 years.

BTW, I actually liked the design of the two towers, it was simple and functional. But for best looking, take a look at the new orchestra hall in LA, it's anything but simple. (I'm slowly turning into an architecture freak)

Originally posted by Porsche
(I'm slowly turning into an architecture freak)

Trust me, I know how you feel ;);)

I liked that building in the movie Showtime where they held that military convention, I'm not too sure what they call it:bandit: