Trump's Towers

[Maksutov]

For once, The Donald and I agree on something. Trump's Twin Towers II looks like what should be built. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050519/ap_on_re_us/trump_twin_towers) I agree with his assessment of the Freedom Tower. Just because modern materials and methods allow one to build some really strange structures doesn't mean you have to do it. Plus the new Twin Towers would be much better structurally and safety-wise.

If someone steals your 52" flat screen TV, you don't replace it with a 19" tube job because you're afraid anything larger might get stolen. You replace it with the same thing or better. Trump described the existing design as "essentially a skeleton" at the top. "If we rebuild the World Trade Center in the form of a skeleton, the terrorists win." Anything less than the equivalent of the Twin Towers is an admission of fear and is, as Trump remarked, a victory for the terrorists.

[Weird Dave]

Though it would be taller than the twin towers, the Freedom Tower would have much of its top one-third given over to airy latticework and a spire emitting light into the night. Only around 70 floors would be usable office space.

Just what the night sky needs. Although it probably wouldn't make much difference in New York.

[mickal555]

I think it should be a memorial park. Not another building

[kucharek]

I think it should be a memorial park. Not another building

Way too much money involved.

[mickal555]

but the people who died!

how can you cover over that?

You cannot make another post so soon after your last; please try again in a short while.

[frogesque]

Problem is Mickal you can't cover it :(

When Pan Am Flight 103 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103) was blown up over Locherbie a memorial site was made instead of rebuilding the houses that were engulfed by the wreckage.

New York is big bold and brash and it simply isn't the way things are done there. Also its a piece of prime real estate that would have been owned by investment companies and insurers who would be desperate to get their cash back. (this isn't a criticisim BTW, just a fact of life) If the people of the US had wanted a ground zero memorial park they would have had to raise the money to purchase the site. It didn't happen.

So, New York will do what it does best. Rebuild and carry on 'normal' life (if anything about New Yorkers can be said normal :lol: - sorry guys!) By doing so they send an uncompromising message to terrrorists that however they try to stop us we continue.

Sometimes it's the best way to stand up to a cowardly would be bully.

[Maksutov]

but the people who died!

how can you cover over that?

You cannot make another post so soon after your last; please try again in a short while.

Take a trip to Dresden, young man. The city where hundreds of thousands lost their lives has been rebuilt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II) As Kurt Vonnegut (who was at Dresden during the bombing) wrote in Slaughterhouse-Five, "There must be tons of human bone meal in the ground." But the people of Dresden rebuilt where hundreds of thousands had died. The new city is a fitting memorial to those who lost their lives. The same would be true of the new Twin Towers.

[Argos]

I would agree with Trump´s logic. The lattice atop the building is an admission of fear. I´d like to see the twins restored as they were.

[Fram]

but the people who died!

how can you cover over that?

You cannot make another post so soon after your last; please try again in a short while.

Take a trip to Dresden, young man. The city where hundreds of thousands lost their lives has been rebuilt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II) As Kurt Vonnegut (who was at Dresden during the bombing) wrote in Slaughterhouse-Five, "There must be tons of human bone meal in the ground." But the people of Dresden rebuilt where hundreds of thousands had died. The new city is a fitting memorial to those who lost their lives. The same would be true of the new Twin Towers.

Nitpick: agreed on your post, but your numbers are a bit high (from your own link):
Both the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta Encyclopedia list the number as "from 35,000 to more than 135,000 dead", the higher figure of which is in line with Irving's retracted "authoritative" higher estimates.

[Maksutov]

but the people who died!

how can you cover over that?

You cannot make another post so soon after your last; please try again in a short while.

Take a trip to Dresden, young man. The city where hundreds of thousands lost their lives has been rebuilt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II) As Kurt Vonnegut (who was at Dresden during the bombing) wrote in Slaughterhouse-Five, "There must be tons of human bone meal in the ground." But the people of Dresden rebuilt where hundreds of thousands had died. The new city is a fitting memorial to those who lost their lives. The same would be true of the new Twin Towers.

Nitpick: agreed on your post, but your numbers are a bit high (from your own link):
Both the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta Encyclopedia list the number as "from 35,000 to more than 135,000 dead", the higher figure of which is in line with Irving's retracted "authoritative" higher estimates.
Good nitpick. I tend to think the figures were well over 100,000, hence the "hundreds of thousands", but even "tens of thousands" should drive the message home. These are individual live we're talking about.

Thanks for agreeing with the general position.

[mid]

I was kind of agreeing with him (I don't like the design very much, either). But then he use one of my pet hate phrases. Sorry, but I can't back anyone who uses the phrase "If we X, the terrorists win" with seriousness.

[Melusine]

I completely agree with Trump. First off, I think the name "Freedom Tower" is goopy, secondly, the cabled-lattice is a style I find architecturally unappealing. The WTC was never beautiful, but it fit in the financial district, along with Wall Street, and was about world trade: every country was in there, just about. It's towers sat as big ugly, grey behemoths on the edge of Battery Park, but somehow from afar they worked in contrast to the art-deco of the Chrysler Building and the stature of the Empire State Building. Rebuild as was, or nearly the same.

I know someone from high school who died on one of the upper floors, and he didn't even work there; he was a computer whiz and was there early to set up for a client, being the perfectionist he was. I know he wouldn't want a park or memorial--that was his livelihood, the buildings were business and the real estate is prime. I don't know why we've become obsessed with memorializing when living and working among the "halls of ghosts" is what we've done and do for years. I'm thinking of how in New Haven, CT, Mr. Townsend insisted on moving all the gravestones from the center of town, because it looked so cluttered and morbid and he wanted New Haven developed: the bodies are still there, the headstones were relocated to the Grove Street Cemetary.

Will people fear working there again? What are the chances? Terrorists could do a lot more damage flying into a football stadium during a game. The possibilities are limitless. New York City has endured worse, if you look at history; people are working in the Empire State building, the Petronas Towers, etc, etc.

New York's spirit is business as usual. Rebuild and let new tourists have a chance to stand on the observation deck once again.

And don't forget King Kong

[LunarOrbit]

While I agree with the idea I think it would be very difficult to find tenants willing to lease space in those towers. The events of 9/11 are so burned into our memories that I think working in exact replicas of the original WTC would be hard for most people, especially those in the top floors.

[Spacewriter]

As a temporary resident of New York, here working on a project for a client for a couple of months, I have to agree that New Yorkers just get on with it in splendid fashion. A couple of weeks ago I woke to sirens, hovering helicopters, traffic piled up everywhere. I turned on the radio and heard the reports of the mini-bombing at the British Embassy about a mile up the street from me. When I was walking to the office I noticed people going about their business, but many on their cell phones telling people, "I'm fine, no problem." I also notice that whenever an airliner flies over Manhattan, people tend to watch it, follow it with their eyes... as do I.

[Maksutov]

mid, one of the goals of the terrorists was to show they could take down any part of America they wished to and have a permanent effect on the country. This would breed fear and insecurity, which are the main objectives of terrorists. Rebuilding the Twin Towers, in an improved version, would show the terrorists that they might have a momentary impact, but the skyline is restored and America goes on, despite the idiots who would attack it. Anything less is an admission that the terrorists had achieved their goal. Please read what I wrote about TV sets.

Melusine, that was beautiful and full of truth. It brought tears to my eyes. Although I was a resident of Connecticut during the later stages of construction of the towers, I often visited NYC and watched their progress. They eventually became part of the "soul" of the city. They need to be restored as a living, working improvement of what came before. After all, Madison Square Garden hasn't been located on Madison Square for how many years?

LunarOrbit, no one's talking about an exact replica. Just buildings that have the same height and profile as the ones that came before. This is an opportunity to use the new knowledge we've gained in architecture and construction over the last 30 years, plus employ new ideas about high-rise safety. I'd try to be first in line for an office, and would really enjoy a dinner at the new Windows on the World restaurant on the 106th floor (or higher). 8)

[Melusine]

Thanks Maksutov. I know there are a lot of New Yorkers who feel the same.

Here's an article that captures local residents' spirit to move on:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0519/p03s01-usgn.html

BTW, I've always felt nervous about working in skyscrapers, but really, there are few problems. I can understand that someone who was there might not want to go back there, but then again, there are many individuals who fall off horses and get up on them again. There will always be new people, they will come. Besides, building them in a similar way is the equivalent to flipping the bird, something New Yorkers have stereotypically been known to do (ok, taxi drivers). :D

[Maksutov]

Thanks Maksutov. I know there are a lot of New Yorkers who feel the same.[edit]
Hey, yez welcome already! Got it?

Besides, building them in a similar way is the equivalent to flipping the bird, something New Yorkers have stereotypically been known to do (ok, taxi drivers). :D
Ah, you must remember the PhotoShopped images of the Towers' replacement that circulated c. 20011001. You know, the one with five towers, the middle tower being the highest? 8)

[Melusine]

Besides, building them in a similar way is the equivalent to flipping the bird, something New Yorkers have stereotypically been known to do (ok, taxi drivers). :D
Maksutov:
Ah, you must remember the PhotoShopped images of the Towers' replacement that circulated c. 20011001. You know, the one with five towers, the middle tower being the highest? 8)Yeah, I do remember that email that flew around the world, but to be honest I wasn't thinking about it. The gesture I was really thinking of is one known to Italians....really even more New Yorkish. :lol:

[LunarOrbit]

LunarOrbit, no one's talking about an exact replica. Just buildings that have the same height and profile as the ones that came before. This is an opportunity to use the new knowledge we've gained in architecture and construction over the last 30 years, plus employ new ideas about high-rise safety.

Yes, but if the improvements are not obvious to the people who work inside the buildings it won't help to ease their concerns. The building designers can say "we did this, this, and this to improve the building's safety", but if it's all hidden under the floors or behind walls the people won't give the improvements much thought.

If the buildings look like the original WTC towers people will assume they will be the same in other ways. Only engineers will know the difference.

Another way to respond to the terrorists is to say that it was not the buildings that we cared about. You can knock our buildings down... we'll just rebuild or move somewhere else. We don't need to have those buildings back in order to function. It was the innocent people who were killed that mattered.

[Crazieman]

9/11 was a sucker punch.

Those buildings are going to have extensive fire control systems, multiple protected staircases, and anti-aircraft missile batteries.

The American way was never to cower and build a silly little park. It's to stand up, flip the bird, and build a bigger building.

Always has been.

Especially New York.

[Nicolas]

AA on a building doesn't seem a practical idea to me. If planes are far away, it can't decide which ones to shoot down on distance alone. If they're closeby, they send the package just a few blocks down the road (unless the missiles truly evaporize the plane 8-[). This might reduce the number of victims, but doesn't really seem like a solution to me.

I agree that a new buildling should be aimed at even higher fire safety (fire fighting and escape). But preventing it from getting deliberately hit by planes is one step too far. In my opinion, protection of buildings should stop where chances of accidents happening virtually stop. Fires can happen, large loads (explosions, storms, earthquakes...) as well. Protecting against these general things covers a broad risk. Taking an aerplane (accidentally) flying into the tower into account is a nice thing, as accidents can happen. But I think it is not the tower's duty to prevent it from becoming a victim of terrorism.

[Stregone]

The main reason 9/11 could happen is because the passengers thought they were just gunna be stuck in the plain on the ground for a while like every other time terrorist hijacked a plane. So, they just accepted it and sat there. If it happens again you know the passengers won't find a utility knife too intimidating.

[publiusr]

For once--I agree with Trump. In addition to whatever else the WTC came to represent--it was the two front teeth of the New York Skyline. And when someone knocks out your two front teeth--you want them back--not some piece of crap 'artwork."

Put Freedon Tower in Taipei.

Put WTC back up in New York. And taller than ever.

ll

[Argos]

AA on a building doesn't seem a practical idea to me. If planes are far away, it can't decide which ones to shoot down on distance alone. If they're closeby, they send the package just a few blocks down the road (unless the missiles truly evaporize the plane 8-[). This might reduce the number of victims, but doesn't really seem like a solution to me.

That´s what I thought. Shooting down an airliner on central Manhattan would still be a dreadful option. You just can´t afford to let a potential TOI get anywhere close to the city.

[Weird Dave]

My problem with the original WTC - and the replacement - is that they have no sense of locality about them. They could have been built in any of the world's cities. I think the replacement should take the opportunity to have a building that screams "New York" at everyone who sees it - something that can hold its own opposite the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings. Maybe I'm talking rubbish (I've never been to New York; everything I know about it comes from the movies) but it seems a shame that everywhere in the world looks the same these days, with identikit glass-on-frame buildings.

However, is it true the new design has some sort of wind turbine at the top? That might explain the emptiness.

[Stregone]

The WTC towers weren't 'glass on frame' skyscrapers. That outer framework was actualy a structural component. The floors were supported by the central shaft with the elevators and stairs on the inside, and the vertical framework on the outside. There were no pillars anywhere between the two, making for lots of open space inside.

[Van Rijn]

The American way was never to cower and build a silly little park. It's to stand up, flip the bird, and build a bigger building.

Always has been.

Especially New York.

Right. My water-cooler suggestion has been to build one large building, but this time, make it 200 stories tall, fully usable. Now THAT would be a fitting monument to 9/11.

[um3k]

My problem with the original WTC - and the replacement - is that they have no sense of locality about them. They could have been built in any of the world's cities. I think the replacement should take the opportunity to have a building that screams "New York" at everyone who sees it - something that can hold its own opposite the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings. Maybe I'm talking rubbish (I've never been to New York; everything I know about it comes from the movies) but it seems a shame that everywhere in the world looks the same these days, with identikit glass-on-frame buildings.

However, is it true the new design has some sort of wind turbine at the top? That might explain the emptiness.
But after thirty years, the twin towers did (and their images still do) scream "New York."

[kucharek]

I've no problem with rebuilding when it is not just some kind of historycism.
The towers were and are a symbol, but why should we have a bad feeling when working again at the same place? We have rebuild so many things and lived again their. Mak mentioned Dresden, how about San Francisco or Hiroshima? Surely, people living in such places have a special recognition of them, but this mustn't be a negative. We should memorize our history, but it is not necessary to keep wounds open to accomplish this.

[mid]

My water-cooler suggestion has been to build one large building, but this time, make it 200 stories tall, fully usable.

The problem with going that high is getting people up and down it. I forget the limit (I think it's between 120 and 150), but after a while you need so many elevators to deal with the number of people who want to get to each floor that the thing ends up too much lift and not enough floor to be practical.

[frogesque]

I've no problem with rebuilding when it is not just some kind of historycism.
The towers were and are a symbol, but why should we have a bad feeling when working again at the same place? We have rebuild so many things and lived again their. Mak mentioned Dresden, how about San Francisco or Hiroshima? Surely, people living in such places have a special recognition of them, but this mustn't be a negative. We should memorize our history, but it is not necessary to keep wounds open to accomplish this.

http://frogesque.com/images/hamburg1.jpg

Anyone recognise Hamburg? This photo was taken by my father as he entered the city.

[Maksutov]

I've no problem with rebuilding when it is not just some kind of historycism.
The towers were and are a symbol, but why should we have a bad feeling when working again at the same place? We have rebuild so many things and lived again their. Mak mentioned Dresden, how about San Francisco or Hiroshima? Surely, people living in such places have a special recognition of them, but this mustn't be a negative. We should memorize our history, but it is not necessary to keep wounds open to accomplish this.
100% agreement, kucharek. I limited the references to the Dresden example in the interest of keeping the post short. So true about San Francisco and Hiroshima, plus Tokyo, Berlin, London, and Atlanta as the results of war, and Pompeii, Krakatau, the Huang He floods, and the 2004 Tsunami from natural disasters. All of these places rebuilt or are rebuilding. I'm sure the folks in Indonesia are spending most of their time building homes and business, not memorials.

[Nicolas]

http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/ron/american_lit2/Images/WWIforPoundDosP/ypres,France,1916.jpg
Ypres after WW1. On some aerial photos, one thinks he's looking at the lunar surface...

http://p.vtourist.com/1649542-Postcard-Ieper.jpg
Ypres after the rebuilding.

After WW1, some people wanted Ypres to remain ruins to remember WW1.
The people of Ypres rebuilt it in its original state, so they could continue where they left. Sure there are WW1 monuments in Ypres, but rebuilding (in its original state, or something new) is a practical way to deal with the past. And the monuments within the rebuilt city make sure the war will not be forgotten.

Similarly, I have no problems with rebuilding the (improved/slightly altered) twin towers.

[frogesque]

You are quite correct Nicolas, one of the best monuments is to rebuild for a better future. It's right and proper to have our memorials but we don't want to stagnate in old wounds and bitterness.

Ypes, Hamburg, Dresden, Wasaw, London; it could be anyone of a dozen or more cities from either war reduced to moonscape but now rebuilt and thriving. Monuments to the living, not old ghosts.

[Lianachan]

The people of Ypres rebuilt it in its original state, so they could continue where they left. Sure there are WW1 monuments in Ypres, but rebuilding (in its original state, or something new) is a practical way to deal with the past. And the monuments within the rebuilt city make sure the war will not be forgotten.

Similarly, I have no problems with rebuilding the (improved/slightly altered) twin towers.

I agree completely. At the back of my mind is the fact that the US has no real experience of rebuilding on their own soil after "enemy" action. San Francisco, for example, was rebuilt after an earthquake - not bombs. This may well affect the way people think of what should be done with the site (although, coming from a country with a long tradition of suffering terrorism, I consider it a criminal act - not an act of war).

[Melusine]

[quote="Lianachan"]
I agree completely. At the back of my mind is the fact that the US has no real experience of rebuilding on their own soil after "enemy" action. San Francisco, for example, was rebuilt after an earthquake - not bombs. This may well affect the way people think of what should be done with the site (although, coming from a country with a long tradition of suffering terrorism, I consider it a criminal act - not an act of war).
Well, the enemy was us during the Civil War; we beat eachother up quite nicely. Sometimes I feel I have to keep reminding some of my fellow citizens about this (not here, of course), and though we didn't have cities as built up as in Europe, look at the link below:
http://www.swcivilwar.com/DestructionPhotos.html

We have battlefields memorialized, which I'm glad for, from a land and history preservation aspect. But a city is already a city, and might as well be rebuilt. Rubble looks like defeat; it's sad to remain that way for long.

Those are great photos guys, Frogesque, that one reminds me of the movie "The Pianist," with that scene of total destruction he wanders through. I think of all the beautiful buildings (aside from people, of course) destroyed then, and get upset with unnecessary destruction, like the Buddhas at Bamiyan or the old plant down the street.

[Captain Kidd]

My father was a photographer for the US Army Air Corp during WWII. I have boxes of photos that he kept. The photographes of the wholesale destruction that happened to many European cities, many from overfilghts so that you get a good wide view, makes you stop and think.

I've often pondered making a WWII site to display those photos.

My opinion has always been to rebuild the towers close to the original with a memorial either between, nearby or on the ground floors of one or both buildings.

Most of the propsed replacements just look dumb and as others have mentioned, a waste of space as they're mostly open girders.

The original towers' elevator system had two types, express and "local". The express only stopped every 10 floors or so. Then the locals served only then ten floors between express stopping points. That way multiple local elevators could share the same shaft footprint keeping the total elevator footprint small. So if they went 200 stories, the express elevators would only have 20 stops, or they could increase that to every 20 floors and then they'd stop only 10 times. Hmmm, however, the number or express elevators would have to increase somewhat since travel time would increase. So yeah, there's a break-even point there somewhere.

[CTM VT 2K]

Throughout Europe there are countless churches and other historic buildings that were all but rubble in 1945. With rare exception, to see them today you wouldn't know. In virtually every historic building, there is a series of pictures. One is ALWAYS how it looked in 1945. Sometimes there is a picture or a painting of pre-bombardment, and often a picture taken from the 1945 point from some time more recent.

The building I work in today still has some pock-marks from the fighting in '45.

I remember visiting Dresden in 1990. The famous Frauenkirche that was destroyed in the firebombing 45 years prior still stood in ruins. Today, if you visit Dresden, you can visit a fully restored Frauenkirche. Some parts of it are original. I garuntee that in 50 or 100 years or more, a person could enter that church, and see a photo history that tells the story.

Rebuild the WTC. Build a memorial as a part of it. Let the new towers stand for future generations to remember that while some may have attacked us, we rebuilt. That we would not live in fear. Life must go on.

Rebuild the towers, do not replace them.

[Argos]

Whatever the solution of choice, I think they should use more solid steel and concrete (not exactly in that order).

[Donnie B.]

If the original towers (or something similar) were to be rebuilt, there would certainly be design changes. For instance, the core section (including stairways) would be enclosed in concrete walls, rather than the thick but relatively weak sheetrock used in the original design. Many lives would have been spared by this improvement.

Other examples are the hangers for the floor joists, and the fireproofing used on the steel structural elements, both of which are now seen to be inadequate.

On the elevator question, the original design did use the "express/local' technique, but there were only two express lobbies (roughly at 1/3 and 2/3 of the total height). Local floors in the lower third of the buildings were served from the ground level, in the middle third from the lower express lobby, and the top third from the upper lobby. A similar technique could be used to extend this to taller buildings (and has been proposed for the various "mile-high" buildings being touted). In such colossal skyscrapers it would be necessary to take several hops to reach the top, not just two (maximum) as in the WTC.

And yes, I would like to see the WTC reconstructed at least as grandly as the original, but perhaps with a more interesting architecture. Those plain-vanilla prisms looked awfully Bauhaus-ish. Haven't we moved beyond that?

[Weird Dave]

...I think the replacement should take the opportunity to have a building that screams "New York" at everyone who sees it - something that can hold its own opposite the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings....
But after thirty years, the twin towers did (and their images still do) scream "New York."

OK, fair point.

[publiusr]

They became famous for the tightrope walking--the 1976 Kong remake--and almost prophetically were the first buildings struck in the movie METEOR. When my late father saw a repeat--he thought they used actual footage of 9/11.

And to think that the US no longer has the tallest building. Actually Sears tower still has the tallest usable floor--so I still call that first in my book.

They call spires part of the building--but not Sears' two big masts? Unfair.

I don't think we need worry about airliners. I think the next big blast will involve a shipyard. I was reading about a Liberty Vessel or two filled with Ammonium Nitrate that blew up in Texas City in 1947. Horrific isn't the name. Grandcamp was moored right next to the Monsanto petrochemical plant. Just inland were oil storage tank farms, refineries and warehouse filled with chemicals--and large gas-filled tanks. A few slips down the dock was High Flyer, also filled with AN--and sulfur.

Thankfully a tanker filled with Naptha had not yet arrived.

They found the anchor of Grandcamp about a mile inland. Some of you may remember some footage of Pearl Harbor. The one with the black smoke pouring out of the stack was from Pearl--but think back--and you may remember a long distance shot showing a great fireball along a long port. That was actually footage from Texas City in '47 mixed in documentaries by mistake, IIRC.

Ironically, a ship called High Flyer was also at the scene of the Halifax Nova Scotia blast.

[Melusine]

The latest on the World Trade Center design:

New WTC tower design made public
From Phil Hirschkorn
CNN New York

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 Posted: 2029 GMT (0429 HKT)

Here is a night view of the redesigned tower, which will emit a beam of light from its spire. Image:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York officials released the latest design for the signature building at the World Trade Center site Wednesday after revising it to make the tower more secure
Gov. George Pataki ordered the design changes because police were concerned that the tower's placement adjacent to West Street, a major thoroughfare along the west side of Manhattan, would make it vulnerable to a truck bomb.

Instead of being 25 feet from West Street, the tower will be set back 90 feet, and its 200-foot base will be a reinforced concrete wall covered in steel and titanium.

"I think it's simpler and at the

See full article: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/06/29/wtc.tower.redesign/index.html

[Crazieman]

Anything less than Trump's idea will be the al Qaeda Capitulation Tower, but thats me.

[MAPNUT]

If you were watching back at the time when six basic rebuilding concepts were being considered, you'll recall that all of the schemes included at least one thousand-foot tower, several included twin towers, and a couple were at least as massive as the World Trade Center. While I am no admirer of the Freedom Tower, I think "Stick it to the terrorists" is the only conceivable reason to build something that big, and it's not very rational.

I worked in the World Trade Center from 1979 through 2001 (until 8:45am, Sept. 11, 2001 in fact), and that building was just too big. It took many years to fill up even at bargain rents. For many years much of it was occupied by New York State government offices. It was full and considered prime real estate by 1993, when it was first bombed. Its attractiveness dropped after that. We all knew it was a terrorist target from that day onward. Security was improved and backup lighting was installed in the stairwells for the first time. But we tenants had a lingering uneasiness, to such an extent that the first thing that entered my mind on 9/11 when I heard a strange rumbling noise was, "Was that a bomb?"

All of my colleagues agree we would never work in such a tall building again, much less in a reconstructed WTC. I don't think even our out-of-town management would be tempted by the prospect of making a patriotic statement. It will be hard to find tenants even for the skinny Freedom Tower, unless terrorism has completely fizzled by the time it is finished. Rational people won't want to be the bait in an "I dare you" challenge.

By the way, the express elevators in the WTC went only to the 44th and 78th floor "Skylobbies" and to the observation deck. On 44 and 78 there were several different banks of local elevators, each of which served about 8 floors. I'm grateful to those elevators, they got me out in about 5 minutes.

[Gillianren]

wow. you're very lucky.

I used to take credit card applications by mail, and a woman once called in with a 212 home area code and a 718 work area code, and I said, "wow. that's unusual; it's usually the other way around."

she said, "yeah--I used to work in Manhattan, until September 11, after which my office wasn't there anymore."

I said, "oh." what else can you say?

to be perfectly blunt, I always thought the original Twin Towers were fairly unattractive and definitely boring. my favorite building in New York has always been the Chrysler Building. while I'm not overly thrilled with the new design, at least it's more interesting.

[publiusr]

If you think of it--it would have been cheaper to raze the Pentagon and build another type of building. But we restored it because it is a landmark. Pentagon worked in the 1960s--but better designs could be had now.

Pentagon is a landmark--and so was WTC--and I wnat it right back the way it was--a floor or two taller.

Freedom Tower is lame.

[Eta C]

If you think of it--it would have been cheaper to raze the Pentagon and build another type of building. But we restored it because it is a landmark. Pentagon worked in the 1960s--but better designs could be had now.

I'm not so sure this is true. The Pentagon was in the middle of a major renovation at the time of the attack. This is still ongoing, although it was delayed by the need to reconstruct the destroyed section.

And remember, only one section of the Pentagon was destroyed, amounting to about 1/5 of the building. The remaining 4/5 was undamaged and people continued to work there in the immediate aftermath of the attack. It's not as if the entire structure was a burned out shell. In fact, now, 4 years later, the repairs are complete and you'd be hard pressed to identify the rebuilt part.

What other type of building did you have in mind? If it's to be on the same site there would be severe height restrictions (National Airport and the DC skyline being the two major causes). 10 to 15 stories is about as high as you could go. There's also problems with the foundation for a taller building, since the Pentagon's site is essentially a drained marsh. Frankly, you'd probably end up with something that looks a lot like the present building, just less "bomb-shelterish."

Pentagon is a landmark--and so was WTC--and I wnat it right back the way it was--a floor or two taller.

And a registered one no less.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I agree that the next big attack will occur in a harbour. The amount of explosives that you can cram into a ship is mind-boggling. The Halifax Explosion was mentioned. Here is a view of a street in Halifax before the explosion:

http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/he1_promise/interactives/slideshow/images/02.jpg

And of the same street after:

http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/he2_ruins/interactives/slideshow/images/07.jpg

And that was an accident.

Also, as to what should be done with a replacement for the Twin Towers, look to Canada's Parliament buildings. They were nearly completely destroyed by fire in 1916, and were rebuilt in a similar style, but one that was also much bolder and stronger.

Before:

http://www.parliamenthill.gc.ca/images/explorecentreblock_02.jpg

After:

http://www.nishida-s.com/main/categ1/canada-a-2/canada-a-2.files/parliament-soto.jpg

The same thing should be done in New York. Bigger, better, nicer looking.

[Maksutov]

Anything less than Trump's idea will be the al Qaeda Capitulation Tower, but thats me.
That's my view also.

The present plan is like something Ellsworth Toohey would approve of. I support Trump's Howard Roark version. 8)

[Kebsis]

I'm glad to see that me and Donald Trump aren't the only ones who agree on this. The goofily named 'Freedom Tower' would be an eyesore and a half. I want my twin towers back. Unfortunetly, as I understand it Bloomberg is extremely opposed to anything besides the 'Freedom Tower' (grrr) going up in Battery Park, for whatever reason.

I seriously hope Trump can pull something off here though.

[publiusr]

I agree that the next big attack will occur in a harbour. The amount of explosives that you can cram into a ship is mind-boggling. The Halifax Explosion was mentioned. Here is a view of a street in Halifax before the explosion:

http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/he1_promise/interactives/slideshow/images/02.jpg

And of the same street after:

http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/he2_ruins/interactives/slideshow/images/07.jpg

And that was an accident.

Also, as to what should be done with a replacement for the Twin Towers, look to Canada's Parliament buildings. They were nearly completely destroyed by fire in 1916, and were rebuilt in a similar style, but one that was also much bolder and stronger.

Before:

http://www.parliamenthill.gc.ca/images/explorecentreblock_02.jpg

After:

http://www.nishida-s.com/main/categ1/canada-a-2/canada-a-2.files/parliament-soto.jpg

The same thing should be done in New York. Bigger, better, nicer looking.


That is cool. I wonder which was worse--Halifax or Grandcamp?

The strange thing is that--in both instances--there was a ship by the name of High Flyer also involved.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Halifax was worse. It was the largest man-made explosion until the Trinity test. It was actually used to model the effects of a nuclear blast by scientists working on the Manhattan Project.

The explosion (http://www.firstworldwar.com/photos/graphics/ww_halifax_exp_01.jpg).

[publiusr]

Good Grief...that looks like St. Helens.

[The Supreme Canuck]

And then in the next war, this (http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/halifax/images/58.jpg).

A munitions magazine across the harbour in Dartmouth went up. Not as big as the first explosion, but still...

They didn't have much luck during the Wars.

[publiusr]

Hmm..Texas City was hit twice too--what with the recent blast there. Seems like Halifax and Texas City need to sign up for the sister cities program--like Birmingham AL and England.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Halifax might be up for it. How big is Texas City?

[Melusine]

Halifax might be up for it. How big is Texas City?
Googling is a wonderful thing. Here are some historic photos of Texas City. A mess.

Check these out. Scary.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/metropolitan/txcity/devastation.html

Home page:
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/metropolitan/txcity/devastation.html

[Melusine]

SC, this site has the report and some good photos, some aerial before the explosion, so you can see the area:
http://www.local1259iaff.org/report.htm

Main page with more destruction photos:
http://www.local1259iaff.org/disaster.html

[The Supreme Canuck]

Wow, that's pretty bad. In fact, that's really bad. :o

Oh, and I could have Googled, but I had just come back in from Canada Day on the Hill, so I was pretty tired.

[Melusine]

Wow, that's pretty bad. In fact, that's really bad. :o

Oh, and I could have Googled, but I had just come back in from Canada Day on the Hill, so I was pretty tired. <---Too many beers, eh?

This link I posted with the report was real interesting--read it all last night. This one: http://www.local1259iaff.org/report.htm The section on Ammonium Nitrate was informative.

Apparently Germany had a "pleasant" accident too:
2) 1921 - Oppau, Germany: An enormous pile (4,500 tons) of ammonium sulfonitrate (ammonium nitrate - ammonium sulfate) fertilizer salt was detonated apparently by blasting charges, though blasting had been done many times previously, 450 lives were lost, more than 700 homes destroyed, the buildings housing the plant disappeared entirely - with a mammoth crater 250 ft. in diameter and more than 50 ft. deep - the shock was felt 150 miles away - cause of the explosion was undetermined

[The Supreme Canuck]

<---Too many beers, eh?

'Fraid not. Too young to drink, and I won't break the law. Plus I see no point in getting drunk. :wink:

There's a lot of these sort of accidents on the books. In the 1950s in France lightning hit a buried "mine" (really a tunnel full of high explosives) from WWI. Big blast, but no one hurt. Unfortunately, there are still a number of these mines remaining.

There's a reason why no one wants these sorts of things in their backyard.

[Melusine]

<---Too many beers, eh?

'Fraid not. Too young to drink, and I won't break the law. Plus I see no point in getting drunk. :wink:
Well, I guess I shouldn't tell you about how I got drunk at 3 years old, because I became fond of the taste of Port wine used in communion at church, so when my parents were having their fun, said 3 year old me kept nipping the bottle until I was stone-cold drunk. :lol:

Wine in moderation is good for you! :wink: But it's good to hear there's a law abiding citizen in Canada. :D

There's a lot of these sort of accidents on the books. In the 1950s in France lightning hit a buried "mine" (really a tunnel full of high explosives) from WWI. Big blast, but no one hurt. Unfortunately, there are still a number of these mines remaining.

There's a reason why no one wants these sorts of things in their backyard.
That Germany one sounds particularly nasty considering as many died there as in the Texas City disaster. A 50-ft deep crater is no small rabbit hole. The interesting thing about Texas City is that they re-built within a year's time.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Hey, I have no problem with drinking in moderation, but the law is the law.

What really scares me about these munitions accidents is that we're due for another. Law of averages.

[publiusr]

I seem to remember the Discovery Channel had a special on Grandcamp years ago. There was footage of the Grandcamp actually exploding there.

I also remember this footage mistakenly used as Pearl Harbor footage--not the one with smoke out of the stack--which was from Pearl, but the long distance shot with a fireball followed by a mushroom-like cloud shot from sea level (not an atomic test).

High Flyer was also caught on film going up.

I couldn't find stills of it at the sites listed above.