New WTC Tower Design Made Public

[Justin]

New WTC tower design made public
From Phil Hirschkorn
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 covered in steel and titanium intended to make it blast-resistant.

"This new design reflects a soaring tribute to freedom and a bedrock commitment to safety and security," Pataki said.

The building, which has been dubbed "The Freedom Tower" by Pataki, will remain 1,776 feet, symbolizing the year the United States declared its independence.

It would be almost 100 feet taller than the Taipei 101 Tower in Taiwan, currently the tallest building in the world.

It also will retain a spire, containing a 400-foot broadcast antenna which will emit light at night and is intended to echo the Statue of Liberty's torch.

The tower will be more slender and occupy a smaller footprint in the northwest corner of the 16 acres where the 110-story twin towers once stood, and it won't be completed until 2010, two years later than the original plan.

Pataki and New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg will be joined by WTC developer Larry Silverstein and architect David Childs in presenting the new model at a 10 a.m. ET news conference on Wall Street.

The tower was originally conceived by architect Daniel Libeskind, whose master site plan was chosen in February 2003 to guide the rebuilding process.

Libeskind later was forced to collaborate with Childs, hired by Silverstein, to refine the design, which was unveiled in December 2003.

The 2003 Freedom Tower model featured a torqued glass-and-steel design with a steel cable netting. It had 2.6 million square feet of commercial space, including more than 60 floors for offices, an indoor observation deck above, a sky restaurant and wind-harvesting turbines to supply some of the building's power.
If you go to the site, there are pictures and a slideshow.
CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/06/29/wtc.tower.redesign/index.html)

[Minus Xero]

You destroy our towers, we just build a taller one. Now there's NO way to crash a plane into it.





Wait a minute...

[User Name]

This may sound a little morbid, but I thought back a while ago to 9/11. I was just thinking, that if I were a terrorist and I was trying to cause as much damage and kill as many people as possible and was one of the guys who took over the planes, wouldn't I be able to achieve that if I flew the plane into the towers at a lower level and at an angle?

Yeah, I know you're thinking that I'm such a sick and inconsiderate bastard right about now, but look. I know what it's like to lose a family member, a friend, someone you care about, etc. This was just a thought, and I don't mean any harm by it.

[Minus Xero]

Originally posted by Cameron@Jun 29 2005, 12:33 PM
This may sound a little morbid, but I thought back a while ago to 9/11. I was just thinking, that if I were a terrorist and I was trying to cause as much damage and kill as many people as possible and was one of the guys who took over the planes, wouldn't I be able to achieve that if I flew the plane into the towers at a lower level and at an angle?

Yeah, I know you're thinking that I'm such a sick and inconsiderate bastard right about now, but look. I know what it's like to lose a family member, a friend, someone you care about, etc. This was just a thought, and I don't mean any harm by it.
Well in most cases the foundation of the building is usually the strongest point, hence why the building still stands.

I don't know if the problem with the old WTC was structure. From what I remember, the buildings survived the crashes just fine, it was just the constant fire that melted through the metal, and there was no way to predict that planes would crash into it.

Although I do agree that the best way would be to aim low. That way elevators and stairs leading to ground floor would be eliminated.

[Mark]

"Freedom Tower"? Pfft. America overuses that word.

It looks cool.

You're right, Cameron. There's nothing morbid about it, you're just thinking logical.

[TheZackStump]

N.Y. Times also has a slide show of images
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/nyregion...9cnd-tower.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/nyregion/29cnd-tower.html)

I think it looks better than the first design for the "Freedom Tower"

[FreeYourMind]

Let's hope it stays up.

[Weezy]

Freedom fries, freedom tower, the United States of Freedom... funny how these freedoms are being taken away, eh?

Originally posted by Minus Xero
You destroy our towers, we just build a taller one. Now there's NO way to crash a plane into it.





Wait a minute...

lol. :lol:

[Link04]

Originally posted by Mark@Jun 29 2005, 07:38 PM
"Freedom Tower"? Pfft. America overuses that word.

It looks cool.

You're right, Cameron. There's nothing morbid about it, you're just thinking logical.
Exactly what I was thinking.


It's funny....I read Mr. Bush's latest adress to the nation. It was pretty much the same tired things he's been saying since 9-11. I regret that I was too blind to see through the statements when they were first made.

[Ant]

Originally posted by Link04+Jun 30 2005, 01:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Jun 30 2005, 01:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Mark@Jun 29 2005, 07:38 PM
"Freedom Tower"? Pfft. America overuses that word.

It looks cool.

You're right, Cameron. There's nothing morbid about it, you're just thinking logical.
Exactly what I was thinking.


It's funny....I read Mr. Bush's latest adress to the nation. It was pretty much the same tired things he's been saying since 9-11. I regret that I was too blind to see through the statements when they were first made. [/b][/quote]
Actually, it's one of the first times Bush has admitted problems in Iraq.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Ant+Jun 30 2005, 01:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ant @ Jun 30 2005, 01:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Link04@Jun 30 2005, 01:34 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mark@Jun 29 2005, 07:38 PM
"Freedom Tower"? Pfft. America overuses that word.

It looks cool.

You're right, Cameron. There's nothing morbid about it, you're just thinking logical.
Exactly what I was thinking.


It's funny....I read Mr. Bush's latest adress to the nation. It was pretty much the same tired things he's been saying since 9-11. I regret that I was too blind to see through the statements when they were first made.
Actually, it's one of the first times Bush has admitted problems in Iraq. [/b][/quote]
Right, I'm aware of the differences, sorry for not making that clear. I was referring to the catch phrases he threw around to motivate the country's populace.

[Omar A]

Lets hope Bush doesn't knock it down again.

[Jila]

the freedom tower?

:whistle:

unless theyre freeing slaves in that building, i dont see what the point of calling it that is. these "patriotic" americans are so tacky.

[Tomi]

The "Freedom" Tower? What the hell is wrong with calling it the World Trade Center? :mellow:

[Louis]

Those idiots...you're building a taller building than the World Trade Center, you're naming it the Freedom Tower, and it's taller than the WTC. Anybody see nothing wrong with that?

As MinusXero said, you're building a taller building, must be impossible to it.

Second, everything is based on Freedom. I mean come on, WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE BASED ON FREEDOM?! You're naming foods after freedom. Secondly, what did 9/11 have to do with freedom? 3,000 people died, I don't see any freedom there.

And really, why the fuck are you going to build a building again? You're going to spend a shitload of money on a building called the Freedom Tower. I'd spend my money on drugs rather then pay the taxes to do that. Why the fuck don't you put a few aisles of walls that list the names of those who died there? That would seem much better than to build that kind of builiding.

The design is cool and all, but I'm really against this.

[Ander]

Originally posted by GiriosXeni@Jun 29 2005, 10:38 PM
3,000 people died, I don't see any freedom there.
Freedom from the Patriot Act, I guess.

[Dedicated]

I swear down these designs were made public a while back. Or maybe that was before they had picked this design or something... :mellow:

[Minus Xero]

I say we make these buildings underground. No way to crash planes into underground bunkers, eh?

They're calling it Freedom Tower because only people who work there will be free. :lol:

[Ant]

First of all, you people are making way too big of a deal over it being called the "Freedom Tower." Is it a horrible name? Yes, but it's not hard to understand why they want to call it that.

[Minus Xero]

Originally posted by Ant@Jun 30 2005, 01:50 PM
First of all, you people are making way too big of a deal over it being called the "Freedom Tower." Is it a horrible name? Yes, but it's not hard to understand why they want to call it that.
Because Freedom Fries never took off? :lol:

[Link04]

Originally posted by Ander+Jun 30 2005, 06:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ander @ Jun 30 2005, 06:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--GiriosXeni@Jun 29 2005, 10:38 PM
3,000 people died, I don't see any freedom there.
Freedom from the Patriot Act, I guess. [/b][/quote]
Ah yes! The act that preserves and protects our freedoms by violating them and taking them away. But that's the definition of a government, isn't it?

Ant, you're right. It's blatantly obvious that the name is a cheap attempt to boost the average American's sense of nationalism.

[Matt]

As a lifelong American, I think life was easier, more care free, and overall better before 9/11 and Operation:Iraqi "Freedom". Now they're making a bigger tower that holds more people to die and more equipment to pay for, and they're naming it "The Freedom Tower". I think the world should just end right here because once we get another attack, we get another war, more fear, more bullshit. What is with Freedom? Operation:Iraqi "Freedom". Does anyone see anything wrong with that name? Some people just love to think we're invincible. GiriosXeni is right. We should have a monument with walls of names of people who died, not a tower that screams "You can't do shit to us 'cause we're free!"


Oh, Canada...

[Dr. Octagonapus]

Wow, the building is even going to emit a huge beam of light from the spire at the top of it, for those terrorists who prefer to work at night!

*ba-dum tsh*

[Ant]

Originally posted by Minus Xero+Jun 30 2005, 08:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Minus Xero @ Jun 30 2005, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ant@Jun 30 2005, 01:50 PM
First of all, you people are making way too big of a deal over it being called the "Freedom Tower." Is it a horrible name? Yes, but it's not hard to understand why they want to call it that.
Because Freedom Fries never took off? :lol: [/b][/quote]
"Freedom Fries" and all those other "Freedom" crap names were the worst thing America could have possibly done at the time, and I think everyone realizes this in retrospect... but "Freedom Tower" is a suiting name for the tower, I see no problem with it. If the word hadn't have been overused already I don't think anyone would be having a problem with it.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Ant@Jul 1 2005, 01:25 AM
If the word hadn't have been overused already I don't think anyone would be having a problem with it.
Our point exactly.

I don't think "freedom" symbolizes the current United States of America. All they're try to be is resilient with the name. It's totally transparent and creates a fake sense of security.

[pyropaul]

Originally posted by GiriosXeni@Jun 30 2005, 01:38 AM
Second, everything is based on Freedom. I mean come on, WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE BASED ON FREEDOM?! You're naming foods after freedom. Secondly, what did 9/11 have to do with freedom? 3,000 people died, I don't see any freedom there.

And really, why the fuck are you going to build a building again? You're going to spend a shitload of money on a building called the Freedom Tower. I'd spend my money on drugs rather then pay the taxes to do that. Why the fuck don't you put a few aisles of walls that list the names of those who died there? That would seem much better than to build that kind of builiding.

The design is cool and all, but I'm really against this.
I agree w/ ya. Funds that will be used to build the Freedom Tower could be used much better. It would be cool if they build a memorial at Ground Zero, but constructing a new building doesn't do much to remember/honor those who died.

[Todd]

So when a plane is flown into this one, what will they call it's replacement? "Freedom Tower II"? "The Lookwereidiotsforbuildingareplacementfortheworldtr adecenter Building?"

[Link04]

Originally posted by Todd@Jul 1 2005, 05:07 AM
So when a plane is flown into this one, what will they call it's replacement? "Freedom Tower II"? "The Lookwereidiotsforbuildingareplacementfortheworldtr adecenter Building?"
No, that will be the Liberty tower ;)

[bennylp]

just more of an opportunity for terrorists to knock them down

[Ant]

Originally posted by Todd@Jul 1 2005, 05:07 AM
"The Lookwereidiotsforbuildingareplacementfortheworldtr adecenter Building?"
Alrighty, I've been reading how all of you think that the tower shouldn't be replaced, and I just have to reply to that now...


Yes, it would be cool if they could just make a nice, small memorial to the people that died there, yet an effective one. But, you have to remember that New York land is so freaking inflated in price that you'll never be able to recreate a lot of the revenues that the city once had with the WTC if you don't create a new building.

Secondly, I'm just wondering how we're "idiots" for building a new structure in it's place. You all keep saying it's another target for terrorists, but what large structure isn't? So should we have stopped fixing the Pentagon and not done anything with that at all, either? How about if the downed aircraft got to the White House -- just not rebuild that, either?

The White House was burned down by the British in the War of 1812 (as long as my history isn't failing me, which it may be :lol: ), but we rebuilt that. In fact, a lot of national structures were burned to the ground in the war of 1812, but we rebuilt them. Should we have been afraid and wetting our panties that the British would do such a thing again? I really don't think so.

So, yes, it's always "just more of an opportunity for terrorists to knock them down," but say they keep doing it to other buildings... do we not rebuild any of them? And it's not like they're building the exact twin towers again... now that would be an insult. There's going to be a memorial in the exact footprint where the two old structures were, so why is everyone complaining? Their space will never be occupied by commercial buildings ever again.

pyropaul: they ARE creating a memorial at ground zero. 7/8th (or something like that) of the land is going to the memorial, and 1/8th is going to the "Freedom Tower."

[Mark]

Originally posted by Ant@Jul 1 2005, 12:54 PM
The White House was burned down by the British in the War of 1812 (as long as my history isn't failing me, which it may be :lol: ), but we rebuilt that.
Well, the British colonized Canada and it was British soldiers trained in Upper Canada (being Ontario), who burnt down the White House, so we'd like to take a little credit for that. :lol:

Happy Canada Day, everyone. :P

[Darcy]

Originally posted by Minus Xero@Jun 30 2005, 02:32 PM
I say we make these buildings underground.
I was about to say that. But I'm sure it would be nearly impossible.

Ant, I agree with you.

If all tall buildings are targets for terrorists, should we take down the Sears Tower ourselves? How about the Empire State Building? Should we unbuild that too? Should we tear down every tall building in the country so the terrorists have nothing to crash their planes into?

I think not.

[Ant]

Originally posted by Mark+Jul 1 2005, 03:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Jul 1 2005, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ant@Jul 1 2005, 12:54 PM
The White House was burned down by the British in the War of 1812 (as long as my history isn't failing me, which it may be :lol: ), but we rebuilt that.
Well, the British colonized Canada and it was British soldiers trained in Upper Canada (being Ontario), who burnt down the White House, so we'd like to take a little credit for that. :lol:

Happy Canada Day, everyone. :P [/b][/quote]
haha :lol:


Anyways, all I'm trying to say is that we're going to put something in at least some of the space the twin towers took up, so we might as well use as little space as possible to build a new skyscraper of massive proportions... I mean, it does two things: it creates far more jobs and office space in New York (bolstering their economy), and it gives the most amount of space we can pretty much afford to give to the memorial. I don't have a problem with that, personally.

[Weezy]

I'm surprised that no one suggested building a Walmart.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Weezy@Jul 1 2005, 03:48 PM
I'm surprised that no one suggested building a Walmart.
Nah, not in NYC.


My sister has lived there for 4 years (she moved up there about 2 weeks before 9/11 and lived a block from the WTC) and said that there isn't a Wal Mart in NYC or any of the other bouroughs. Its a very liberal city and the people who live there do not want a Wal-mart there and have gotten the city to block previous requests by Wally World to build one there.

[Link04]

Now that, I will whole heartedly agree with, Ant. To give up and quit and not try to gain new capital and replace the building would be utterly foolish. Why don't we just stop living, because they have the capabilities to take our lives away? :rolleyes:

[Justin]

:lol: My thoughts exactly.

Yes, it would be cool if they could just make a nice, small memorial to the people that died there, yet an effective one. But, you have to remember that New York land is so freaking inflated in price that you'll never be able to recreate a lot of the revenues that the city once had with the WTC if you don't create a new building.

Secondly, I'm just wondering how we're "idiots" for building a new structure in it's place. You all keep saying it's another target for terrorists, but what large structure isn't? So should we have stopped fixing the Pentagon and not done anything with that at all, either? How about if the downed aircraft got to the White House -- just not rebuild that, either?
Anyways, all I'm trying to say is that we're going to put something in at least some of the space the twin towers took up, so we might as well use as little space as possible to build a new skyscraper of massive proportions... I mean, it does two things: it creates far more jobs and office space in New York (bolstering their economy), and it gives the most amount of space we can pretty much afford to give to the memorial. I don't have a problem with that, personally.

They're making a memorial onsite; it's going to be the first part to be constructed.

Good points in your second and third paragraphs.

Hey, if it's Canada Day, why the hell are you guys inside? Oh yeah, the Muchmusic Countdown's today. :lol: Go outside.

[Jila]

Originally posted by Todd+Jul 1 2005, 02:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Jul 1 2005, 02:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Weezy@Jul 1 2005, 03:48 PM
I'm surprised that no one suggested building a Walmart.
Nah, not in NYC.


My sister has lived there for 4 years (she moved up there about 2 weeks before 9/11 and lived a block from the WTC) and said that there isn't a Wal Mart in NYC or any of the other bouroughs. Its a very liberal city and the people who live there do not want a Wal-mart there and have gotten the city to block previous requests by Wally World to build one there. [/b][/quote]
wow, i did not know that. well at least i just leaned something. go new york city.

[User Name]

Originally posted by Mark+Jul 1 2005, 08:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Jul 1 2005, 08:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ant@Jul 1 2005, 12:54 PM
The White House was burned down by the British in the War of 1812 (as long as my history isn't failing me, which it may be :lol: ), but we rebuilt that.
Well, the British colonized Canada and it was British soldiers trained in Upper Canada (being Ontario), who burnt down the White House, so we'd like to take a little credit for that. :lol:

Happy Canada Day, everyone. :P [/b][/quote]
Haha, yeah. After that, we came back and a keg or six. Per person. Beer was cheap back then. :lol:

[Weezy]

Originally posted by Todd+Jul 1 2005, 01:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Jul 1 2005, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Weezy@Jul 1 2005, 03:48 PM
I'm surprised that no one suggested building a Walmart.
Nah, not in NYC.


My sister has lived there for 4 years (she moved up there about 2 weeks before 9/11 and lived a block from the WTC) and said that there isn't a Wal Mart in NYC or any of the other bouroughs. Its a very liberal city and the people who live there do not want a Wal-mart there and have gotten the city to block previous requests by Wally World to build one there. [/b][/quote]
Hah, I had no idea they banned Walmarts from coming into the city. I thought that SF was the only one.

I guess we're not alone in the US! :D

[Jila]

Originally posted by Weezy+Jul 2 2005, 03:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Weezy @ Jul 2 2005, 03:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Todd@Jul 1 2005, 01:47 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Weezy@Jul 1 2005, 03:48 PM
I'm surprised that no one suggested building a Walmart.
Nah, not in NYC.


My sister has lived there for 4 years (she moved up there about 2 weeks before 9/11 and lived a block from the WTC) and said that there isn't a Wal Mart in NYC or any of the other bouroughs. Its a very liberal city and the people who live there do not want a Wal-mart there and have gotten the city to block previous requests by Wally World to build one there.
Hah, I had no idea they banned Walmarts from coming into the city. I thought that SF was the only one.

I guess we're not alone in the US! :D [/b][/quote]
:o

SF too?! wow, im surprised a city like las vegas isnt as liberal. but then again the town is pretty much run by the multi-millionaire casino owners, so it doesnt really surprise me much. we have quite a few wal-marts :(