southsider2k5 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 And I gotta say, I like his idea better http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/18/wtc.trump/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 agreed. Trump's plan is better by far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 His plan is better--but he's such an attention whore I hate admitting that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I don't like either, truth be told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ May 20, 2005 -> 12:44 AM) His plan is better--but he's such an attention whore I hate admitting that.... It's a comb - over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I really like Liebeskind's design. The WTC was amazing for the architectural feat it was at the time. To reproduce it today would be, well, kinda boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigHurt35 Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ May 19, 2005 -> 01:06 PM) The WTC was amazing for the architectural feat it was at the time. I wouldn't say it was "amazing." IIRC, the buildings were ~ 100 feet taller than the Empire State Building (not a big deal), but were overshadowded by the Sears Tower a year later. They were also bland and looked very similar to the Amoco Building (now called the Aon Center) in Chicago, which was completed the same year. I'm not sure which design I would rather see built: A recreation of the original ugly twin towers or a the previously-selected avant garde Euro-eyesore. If it were up to me, I'd build a 1,700-foot (e.g., world's tallest) tower, similar in design to 900 N. Michigan in Chicago, but that's probably not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 I always preferred this proposal: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ May 19, 2005 -> 02:44 PM) I wouldn't say it was "amazing." IIRC, the buildings were ~ 100 feet taller than the Empire State Building (not a big deal), but were overshadowded by the Sears Tower a year later. They were also bland and looked very similar to the Amoco Building (now called the Aon Center) in Chicago, which was completed the same year. I'm not sure which design I would rather see built: A recreation of the original ugly twin towers or a the previously-selected avant garde Euro-eyesore. If it were up to me, I'd build a 1,700-foot (e.g., world's tallest) tower, similar in design to 900 N. Michigan in Chicago, but that's probably not going to happen. Amoco and Sears Tower were very different buildings structurally. The openness of the inside of the WTC was what made it so special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigHurt35 Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ May 20, 2005 -> 11:02 AM) Amoco and Sears Tower were very different buildings structurally. The openness of the inside of the WTC was what made it so special. IIRC, the Amoco (Aon Center) has the same type of architectural design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighHeat45 Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ May 20, 2005 -> 05:29 AM) I always preferred this proposal: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.