There’s one thing I’ll still miss in the design (although I’m not 100% certain). I went up on the observation deck of South Tower in 1992, and the panoramic view was utterly spectacular, one of the memorable events of my life.

I know it’s a relatively small point to make — after the spectre of that Libeskind catastrophe had hung over the landscape I agree that this is a welcome improvement. But there remains something lost, a view of the city we’ll never have again.

The description of the design at the site I linked doesn’t mention where the observation deck will be, though I suppose it will be at the top of the middle section of the building, which I think will be at least as high as the WTC towers.

It seems that the Channing, Chrysler, and Empire State Buildings will remain the largest attractive structures in the city.

OK, the observation platform will be atop the 60th floor. “The building will contain 2,600,000 square feet of office space on approximately 60 stories - clad in shimmering glass and affording spectacular views. The base will contain both public lobbies and lobbies for the office building. Two concourse levels will house retail components and connect to transit hubs. At the top, the building will house both roof top restaurants and a public observation deck. In essence, the Freedom Tower will contain the same programmatic elements that existed in the original Trade Center.”

http://www.renewnyc.com/news/default.asp.htm

I thought that the new design was far better. It will still insult the skyline. (Just imagine what the model would look like if those new buildings were colored brown like the rest.) But the worst elements have been removed.

Here is an interesting essay by Salingaros and Hanson on Libeskind’s first design:

http://archrecord.construction.com/inTheCause/0203Libeskind/libeskind-2.asp

The criticism is that Libeskind’s design style for the WTC is that it is exactly the same as the style he used for his Jewish Holocaust Museum in Berlin. An architecture of death was appropriate there. But for the WTC?

There’s some ambiguity in the passage Mr. LeFevre quoted, but as best as I can make it out, the deck does seem to be at the 60th floor. That is a shame. They should put the deck at 1,500 feet!

The next part of the article clarified it: “Above the occupied spaces, a lacy structure of tension cables that brace the building - similar to those found in the Brooklyn Bridge - will continue, rising up to 1,500 feet.”

The spire will continue for another 276 feet.

I couldn’t find a measure for how hight the 60 stories will go, but the Twin Towers had 110 stories. And the South Tower was 1,362 feet high.

Judging from the model photo of the proposed new tower, it looks to be about 1,000 feet or so to where the observation platform would be. So the Empire State Building, standing at 1,250 feet, will probably yield a grander view.

But enough of my complaining. At least that Libeskind travesty has been improved upon. We can all thank God for that.

It looks very nice now. I agree the observation deck should be at 1500 feet.

Now I’ll put my tinfoil hat on and say it should not be built, and our cities should be evacuated over the next 10-20 years to avoid catastrophic destruction by terrorism or earthquake or nuclear reactor meltdown. Many people could work out of their homes. More space could be conserved with small buildings, condominiums, and townhouses. Rail could be the preferred mode of local travel conserving more resources and making daily life quieter.

I really don’t like that sharp stiletto pointed at the sky though.

I like the design as well. However, to get an idea of just how bad it could have been, read

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1283

You’ll apprecaite the design even more.

Ron informs me that he meant not the Channing Building, which I had never heard of, but the Chanin Building, which has a famous Art Deco façade.

The new design may be better than the original brainchild -if that is the proper term — of the daft Liebskind, but I think that it is a mistake to build anything on that site. Any replacement building will be a target; I doubt that Manhattan is in dire need of more office space, and few people would care to work there. A memorial park would be more appropriate.

Mr. Levine’s concerns are reasonable, but I just don’t see how we could accept his solution. Sure, the replacement building would be a target, but as it is, lots of buildings are targets. Deciding not to build anything on that one site doesn’t mean that other buildings won’t be targets. So there is no alternative to defending ourselves and defeating our enemies. Also, suppose other buildings are destroyed in the future, which is entirely possible. Are we to turn the site of every destroyed building into a memorial park, instead of re-building there? That sounds like a recipe for death.

Ironically, it sounds like a variation of the Islamic formula whereby any area that comes under Moslem rule must always remain under Moslem rule. That is, once a building belonging to dar al Harb is destroyed by Muslims, the infidels can never build anything on the site of that building again.

I understand Mr. Auster’s points, and to be seen as somehow caving in to the enemy goes against the grain. However, it seems to me that any structure put up there will be a white elephant that people will not want to rent space or work in. It is a little like rebuilding the Arizona to “prove” that the Japanese did not win at Pearl Harbor. My sister works a few blocks from the site, and has told me that she would quit if her employers moved into a building there. As far as I can tell, this sentiment is widely shared by New Yorkers.

That’s a tough message, though it seems a little late to be considering it at this point. I wonder, amid the polls that were taken of the kind of replacement design that people favored for the WTC site, if people were asked how they would feel about working in the replacement building themselves.

I think that the concern is partly addressed by having the inhabited part of the building only go up to the 60th floor.

EGADS! I hadn’t clicked on the link “postmodern monstrosity” before I posted my comment! It WAS just as bad as it could have been! Here’s another link:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.15401/article_detail.asp

In the search for this link I also found

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.15393/article_detail.asp

New York Times article on how the new Freedom Tower design evolved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/nyregion/26TICK.html?hp

Daniel Henninger at the Wall Street Journal agrees with Alan Levine in opposing new buildings at Ground Zero, though for different reasons. To Henninger, it’s a memorial place, like the Gettysburg battle field, and shouldn’t be turned into a huge, crowded office and shopping mall. However, since he knows that something will be built there, he proposes a compromise: just build the Freedom Tower but none of the other planned buildings.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110004481

It’s funny how the human mind works, or at least my downloaded edition of it. For the last two years, I had dismissed out of hand the idea that the WTC site should remain some vast memorial or park. I thought that was nuts, an embrace of permanent victimization. But Mr. Levine’s argument, combined with Daniel Henninger’s, has for the first time made me question the very desirability of re-building there. Mr. Levine says it’s too dangerous and besides, people won’t want to work there. Henninger says keeping the space as a memorial is a positive value which rebuilding will destroy. So rebuilding is negative, and not rebuilding is positive. It’s a one-two punch. I’m not saying I’m a convert, but at least I’m entertaining the idea.

“An engineer working on plans for the 1,776-foot-high replacement for the World Trade Center in New York wants the wind turbines at the top to serve as Buddhist prayer wheels, ‘cycling through mantras of peace.’”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36538

“That is the architecture of who we are as a people,” says the article. Will this never end?

In a culture that’s in fragments, everyone has his own “truth” and has to push it on everyone else, and there is no sense of a common mind and allegiance. It’s like during the Iraq war, with all those retired colonels and generals appearing on tv as consultants. You assumed that such men had the well-being of the armed forces and the United States at heart; in fact, most of them were just shamelessly pushing their own special agendas, regardless of the effect it might have on the war effort. It was shocking. But that’s modern liberal society.

According to the website www.skyscraperpage.com there will be a second observation platform at the top of the lattice structure at approximately 1500 feet making it the worlds tallest {CN Tower being approximately 1475}. Taking into account the difference in position, this should afford similar or better views than the old tower 2.