|You are in: Talking Point|
Monday, 10 February, 2003, 12:12 GMT
Which WTC design gets your vote?
Two plans which would create the world's tallest structure have been chosen as finalists for the World Trade Center site in New York.
Both designs feature structures higher than the two towers destroyed on 11 September 2001.
The final choice is expected later this month.
In December, leading architects presented their plans, aimed at pleasing business interests alongside honouring those who died when the original twin towers collapsed.
Earlier blueprints for the site were abandoned by New Yorkers for being unimaginative and this time round, the competing companies were given more freedom with the designs.
Which of the two final designs get your vote? What would you like to see on the site of the World Trade Center?
Thank you for your e-mails. This debate is now closed. A selection of your comments is published below.
New York needs an addition to its skyline that will inspire future generations. The most notable features in the New York Skyline were taken away. They need to be replaced with the most notable architecture of any skyline in the world. That would be a true memorial to those lost, all of New York City and the rest of The United States.
Aside from them being the tallest buildings in the world, they have absolutely nothing to recommend them. Having to choose between the two of these is like having to pick a president from the 2 major parties. You mean to tell me this is the best anyone could come up with?
From an engineering viewpoint the Think proposal is absurd. Their lovely image of two glass tubes will be destroyed when concrete floors are added. The Libeskind design is far superior in my opinion.
I think that the towers should be rebuilt, exactly as they were. A monument to human dignity, respect and love, forces that can never be destroyed. A monument that says out loud: Nobody will destroy the American dream.
Why not let America have the world's tallest building again? After the terrible act of terror on September 11th, surely something to give their country some pride cannot be grudged.
These proposals are disgraceful. What's so wrong with proposing a "World Cultural Park" and plant trees for every life lost.
I vote for the Think Team design. It is not just another building and will certainly cause us to remember what once was. It sort of says it all.
I am disappointed that New York seems to have learnt nothing from September 11, 2001. Such large buildings are just going to be a target for the next lot of crazies with a plane and not much planned for the next day. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The committee should have chosen the Gaudi design. What better tribute to the victims than to erect a building designed by a genius! It would also have enlightened many Americans to a bit of Spanish/European culture.
As a New Yorker who lived and worked under the WTC, I feel very strongly that we must rebuild bigger and better than before. Both designs provide beautiful and inspiring monuments. I fear however that they, and certainly the Think Team design seem to be monuments to the past and less like forward looking monuments to New York's greatness. Let the park be a memorial - make the buildings inspire, and give us something that makes us look forward to tomorrow.
The thing NYC and the US need the most is a tall structure to replace the WTC. We need to reassert our strength and not build something that makes us look meek and weak.
Steve Dark, USA
I think neither of the projects is adequate for the task of evoking the greatness of America. I really don't know what would be better, but I think the new building should be something glorious above any doubt, Proud and defiant to terrorism.
How about neither of the above? They are both hideous, especially the Think Team design. If a memorial is desired - then build a memorial, not an eyesore. A tasteful memorial and maybe a standard skyscraper or two.
The Libeskind proposal is the more attractive of the two - but I am of the view, that as that much office space is not needed anymore on that site, that a low-rise design incorporating parks, offices and a memorial linked by a crystal palace of some sort may be the best utilization of that site.
Neil Jones, West Midlands, UK
Both selections look pretty un-inspired. The WTC needs to be rebuilt with a memorial at the bottom and throughout the building. Simply creating a "shell" of the building does not give it the honour it truly deserves.
Both of these proposals, together with the seven others just now set aside, are vastly better than the previous renewal options. I worry, however, that in practice the Libeskind design would be reduced to a tranche of fairly ordinary development with only the 'garden' spire and some angular geometry here and there to spice the whole thing up.
On the other hand, the Vinoly / Schwartz design seems to be all or nothing. Their proposed 'towers' have no commercial value in themselves - you either build them or you don't. This is a strength, in that their design is very difficult to dilute, but it may also be the reason their design is not selected.
Personally, I prefer the "Think" design.
I'm sorry, but judging from the pictures here on the BBC's website, both designs look absolutely awful; with particular derision going to Think Team's design.
Couldn't they have included more companies? Held an open competition? Literally any individual architect could have sent in a design, and then let the people of New York vote on the choices via web-vote?
Donal Reilly, USA
I believe the THINK team's design is the most inspiring. It strikes the right balance between memorial for the dead and reclaiming the site for the living. I would like to see the 8 office buildings in the THINK design reduced to three or four taller buildings allowing more open park space in the final design.
I personally find both proposals to be unsightly. There have been many tragedies before - and at the majority of the sites a new building was erected. Of course 9/11 is different than a fire or maybe even a car bomb, but to rebuild what was taken away would say much more than what the erecting towers of steel can. The sky line of NYC needs a sturdy backbone; the twin towers provided that support; it is because of that, that I feel we should rebuild the twin towers; or a similar structure of greater size; and not smaller buildings dwarfed by a lanky monument which demonstrates nothing other than a mourning nation - the GI's never even received a monument as large!
When making my decision on which of the two design should reach the final, I considered the surrounds and what they would benefit from the most - my final conclusion was that The Think Team reflected a more environmentally calming approach, something which I feel the streets of New York could do with. It is a refreshing design that would arouse a more peaceful outlook on the working day.
Libeskind is by far the better design. The sleek lines make it a far more attractive building.
The Think team's design is just beautiful. It evokes the memory of the towers in their shape and gesture, but they also have a distinctly modern use of form and light. I can easily imagine the skyline in harmony with this large, open structure.
The site is, and always should be respected as a mass grave.
Can you imagine the uproar if Disney wanted to build a theme park in the middle of Northern France Cemetries, where many lost their lives in WW I & II? The same would be true if Valley Forge Park in PA was changed into a housing development.
The site of the WTC is sacred ground, and no commercial enterprise is worth more than the price of human life lost there
None of these meet the aspirations of anyone who has worked in the previous buildings. We are not cowards, we need to re-build the structures taller and more bold than the previous one, with adequate security in place.
I think the design by Foster and Partners came closest to fulfilling the aspirations of New Yorkers. I am disappointed in the choice. C'mon New Yorkers, nobody beats you!
Ashwani Khanna, Germany
I think if they build there should be a memorial in the top floor.
They are both dreary.
Cheryl Ruiz, USA
The space WTC space should be used to CREATE a work of innovation, purity of idea, and the greatness of our technology, resources, and location. I elect a Wright-Gerhy hybrid, a group/individual who can beautifully integrate nature with technology. If we are to show the world that we have recovered, grown, and changed for the better because of what happened- then we should promote change and innovation. Not the same outline of other towers, not a larger skeleton (or target) to re-build. If the US in its blinding stupidity wants to be the biggest, largest, greatest.. then let this structure be the most unique.
04 Feb 03 | Americas
18 Dec 02 | Americas
13 Jan 03 | Americas
18 Dec 02 | Americas
18 Dec 02 | Americas
Top Talking Point stories now:
Links to more Talking Point stories are at the foot of the page.
|E-mail this story to a friend|
Links to more Talking Point stories
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> | To BBC World Service>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy