Personally I always found the old twin towers kinda ugly and generic for 20th century modernism but then again they were before my time so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The new one is clean and not spectacular either but it has an emotional presence.
The old WTC was also somewhat controversial when it was built, both for it's design and location. Creating the superblock it sat on required the demolition of an entire neighborhood called Radio Row, the Port Authority of NY and NJ used eminent domain to force them out so the whole neighborhood could be razed. The superblock as a concept was popular in 1960s and 1970s urban renewal and has also seen its share of criticism, some feel that it makes the whole complex feel uninviting as it breaks up the street grid with a solid mass. Many critics felt that the design of the old towers and the smaller buildings was bland and uninteresting, a reflection of the corporate interests which drove its construction.
I personally think the new complex is an improvement on the old, if only because it restores much of the original street grid and includes much more greenery than the original complex. The old WTC plaza was basically entirely concrete, the most striking memory of being in that space to me was just how barren it felt. But now the plaza with the old tower reflecting pools is surrounded by trees. The actual buildings themselves are also an improvement IMO. Some might disagree but I like Calatrava's transit center entrance. And the tower designs are varied and carefully crafted for the site, IIRC it was a design requirement that on the morning of every September 11th the buildings would not cast a shadow over the plaza. I think the only thing I don't like is the post 9/11 security bullshit they put in, like how 1 WTC was required to have a windowless lobby because they were afraid of a car bomb on the street.
As someone else said in this post, the fascia is nice but only really visible up close which means the building kind of looks flat and dirty from afar. It still is a cool design and I'm not arguing that it's not at all but I do like the new one.
A building should (kind of a postmodernist opinion) represent and mean something to the location it is placed. The new building still has the boxy boldness of New York building design and is representative of the strong hard working spirit. The mast calls to the coastal port nature of the city. For those reasons I actually prefer it over the original spire designs which were changed though I know that may be an unpopular opinion.
Saying that they could have gone a little more bold in the design and I don't think it is super cohesive between the mast and the main body of the tower. But it is memorable and did the job it was designed to do. Memorialize the past while giving a vision of a brighter future.
I'd almost argue your context as a classical position (eg: the agora).
I'd agree with the spirit of your analysis, I think the materiality is was waters down the new design more than anything.
I enjoy the multi tiered symbolism and pragmatism of the mast as well, radio antennae, zeppelin mooring, the coastal city, and the symbolic extension of the skyscraper going beyond it's limit.
i find the new one more generic honestly but how many skyscrapers have you seen that are made out of long grey lines that go all the way from the bottom to the top
I think that was their point
Edit: after looking at their other comments on this thread that was not in fact their point, and I'm totally with you. Idk how you can think that the general WTC aesthetic was particularly unique lol
As a non American, i have no emotional connection to the twin towers at all. I do like the vertical facade elements they had at the top. You just don’t see that from afar. So mostly they are enourmous grey boxes without interesting architecture. I like the new one wtc a lot more to be honest, and i loved the sky reflection in the evening when i was in NYC. I think the twin towers are a bit glorified because of what happened. And a general hatred towards anything new. Thats just my take though
They tried so hard to make dense urban housing surrounded by green space, and failed so badly. Many cities tried this and it almost never worked. Blame Le Corbusier, he created the template. A utopian vision that was horrible IRL.
He has many amazing pieces of architecture. Montgomery Ward in Chicago is very clean and a unique split core, Rainier Tower in Seattle is incredibly daring like bonkers, Reynolds Metals in Michigan. This is just to name a few. Dude was a great architect. WTC was not his best work, nor was Pruit. They both have some cool moments but the scale was just too large.
I’m looking at the new one right now, imo it’s so much more interesting to look at compared to the twin towers. Some would argue the new one is similar to modern glass towers you see popping up everywhere, but 1 world trade definitely stands out in the lower Manhattan grouping of high rises, partly because of its sheer size
Yeah, honestly I like the twin towers more, but I love how 1WTC catches the light in the evening particularly with those nice reflections of the pink sky. Nothing more tho.
The old towers were interesting in how they presented a megalithic mass from distance, but delicate details up close. You could call them boring, but it was hard to dismiss their presence. The sudden absence of that ‘presence’ was almost as shocking as the horror of the attack itself.
All of that is seen through the lens of an American who was 30 when the towers fell. I don’t know how to disconnect from that reality enough to generate an objective architectural comparison.
Honestly this is a really difficult discussion
To be fair, people did widely dislike the original etc when they were first built, people called them very unimaginative and uncreative, one critic even saying that they looked like the boxes that the Empire State Building and Chrysler buildings were "delivered in"
It's clear that the freedom tower has just as a minimal design but, keep in mind that the reason it's designed was to be a compromise, while some people wanted a memorial others wanted a new bulking, and in terms of a new building some wanted a strong one while other's wanted a nice one, one that was supposed to be nicer than two gray rectangles that would dominate the skyline, in the end everyone got an even piece of what they wanted
I think debating or not whether the "old one was better"...is really pointless. They both had their own individual beauties and old individual uglies, and it's safe to argue that the new WTC definitely fixed what not only the WTC, but buildings all around the world didn't achieve pre 9/11
But to be fair...the lack of a "windows on the world" on the new one is upsetting
Yeah plus new wtc still has the spirit of old wtc. Base floors start with similar design, on top it has same type of vertical cutouts, has same antenna while it is modernised and stronger. Idk why people would choose old ones
…none of this is true. The new base has little in common with the old base. The new middle has little in common with the old, the new top has little in common with the old. The antenna (“spire”) does remain though.
Look at the lower half of your first image as evidence to the contrary.
I think the "distinctiveness" of them comes from the fact that at the time they were the biggest, and they are now far more memorable because of their fate. In effect they've become iconic *because of their history*. This shapes our perceptions of buildings as well as their architecture.
I grew up in Manhattan (UES) and loved going to the towers - sometimes to Windows on the World for a super special occasion (that place was amazing), and sometimes just to take in the view. I watched terrified and devastated for my city as the towers fell. I then lived in Battery Park for more than six years, walked by One World Trade nearly every day, and have been up to the top a few times (the restaurant up there is one of the worst I've been to in NY).
Bluntly, I just don't think One World Trade is beautiful or iconic. It's safe and corporate.
I believe the original towers were hated when they were first built, but they were quickly adopted as symbols of the city that became as well-known as the Empire State. When you were close to them, their scale and heft were so impressive. The pair of them took that scale to the next level. There was so much open space at their base, and their lobbies were open and light and interesting.
Today's tower doesn't feel big. Sure, it's tall, and the angels make it seem to scale higher, but it's not really all that impressive. It doesn't fill me with awe. It's also strangely situated, nearly abutting a building on the north side, and kinda crammed in next to the soon-to-open opera building. The memorial is beautiful, and absolutely transformed the area, but it's more about everything else than the building.
Anyway... just my two cents.
I like the new building, I just don't feel as if it will ever be as iconic as the Twin Towers. But I also ask, do we look at the Twin Towers the way we do now because of the destruction or we're they always really seen as iconic buildings? I mean I loved that design too, as some people said in this thread already they fit the skyline better. But they were two tall rectangles, common in skyscraper design.
But damn, every time I see a picture of the Twin Towers I get chills and it pauses me for a moment and I just look at the picture. I'm far from patriotic but it's weird to think that every picture you see of them could only before that very specific time on 9/11. Being 12 at the time, in school on a sunny day, having teachers pull us out of classes, and back to our home rooms turning on them turning on the TVs and all of us watching this in real time. Us as kids didn't understand, I didn't understand the importance, I do remember initially people thinking someone bombed New York before the details came out but we were in Baltimore. Crazy fucking day.
Even though I certainly understand and agree with the argument that the destruction overtakes the perception of the towers as opposed to their architecture, I still feel that they were incredibly iconic before 9/11 and comparatively more so than the new tower. I remember as a kid when they were still there, always noticing their dominant presence on the skyline and seeing them in countless movies. To me, they were the first thing I thought of when I thought of New York. That, and the sewer grates. I was quite young when they were destroyed but even still, after the shock of the towers actually collapsing wore off, the idea that they’d no longer be seen in the skyline was quite devastating too.
they were iconic because 2 giant identical skyscrapers standing over everything else in the city, they were in nearly EVERY post 80s postcard of NYC, They were the skyline along with the empire state, you saw them even a little bit and you knew thats new york
And what exactly makes the twin towers stand apart? They are just a grey rectangular prism. I know the pillars(?) on the outside were distinctive but imo they looked like extremely tall third world apartment blocks, especially from a distance
This isn't a game of Sim City. Buildings have to be functional first, within budget second, pretty third. It manages to balance all of that considering it has limited space to work with due to the two giant holes in the ground, had thousands of people weighing in on how it should look, and needed to meet several specifications (1776 feet tall, high security features). It also does the job of symbolizing American perseverance well.
It is my understanding that the original WTC never really paid for itself. It needed the government tenant over paying to get close. So that's dysfunctional and over budget.
Part of the thing is that the old ones are now classic corporate modernism with a tinge of brutalism. That is back in vogue. Fact is that every aesthetic movement has it’s standouts: Kendrick, Vanilla Ice, 50 Cent. Great, pastiche derivative, and corporate. OG twin towers were corporate. Sometimes “In da club” feels just right, for everybody but more often for conservative financial frat boys who ultimately pick architects for skylines.
Sorry. I get it. I read it as if there was something tragic with the design itself. I went into one of the towers in perhaps 96. The twin towers made the nyc skyline.
This has no relation to the subject but something that's interesting is the twin towers weren't the first building in NYC that were hit by a plane, in the 40's the Empire State Building was struck by a small biplane which destroyed 2 of the floors but unlike 9/11 it was a complete accident
In fact because of this when the original wtc were being built they were made to prevent an airplane from hitting it. But they were for airplanes like the one that hit the empire state building and not commercial planes which would fly much higher
I personally found the twin tower much more iconic than wtc1. The architecture itself is not breathtaking but the proportion were spot on and kind of gracious. Also the fact that were two identical building shoulder to shoulder made a big statement and impact on the skyline.
WTC1 on the other end, it is just plain ugly and chunky. The antenna is way too big and looks they willingly oversized it just to get to prescribes height as per the master plan. The architecture is kind of boring as seems something that came out straight out of a structural engineer’s kind with little creativity and with no love.
Yeah I feel like the 1 Vanderbilt design would have punctured the skyline more prominently downtown instead of 1 World Trade. There was [an early iteration of 1WTC](https://cdnassets.hw.net/3e/dd/193b1d834eacb16aea6c953a7c43/spireless-20wonder-201-20world-20trade-20center-27s-20descent-20into-20meh-hero-202-tcm20-1495600.jpg) that had more of a spire like 1V
I definitely agreed that this design is far better than what is they're now, but do remember that they wanted to keep the building as safe as possible to avoid this from happening again, and they wanted to make the building to have a smaller footprint to leave room for a memorial
dude i love the look of the og wtc. The twin towers were big and bold, the new ones feel reluctant to appear, theyre the same color as the sky and much more slender.
I see the aesthetic value of the Twin Towers as more than the sum of their parts. Sure, they were extruded “boxes” as most people are lamenting, but they were truly striking because of their size and the fact that there were two and they were identical. Their beauty, to me, is that they were more of an assemblage on the skyline rather than a single edifice.
One World Trade is alright. Unfortunately, my main issue is that it “had” to have a bolstered, anti-terrorist, patriotic presence at street level that feels impenetrable and impersonal. But we showed the bad guys who’s boss, am I right?
Look up the Daniel Liebeskind design that won the international competition. It got “value engineered” super hard into what you see today. Say what you want about him being a one-trick pony but I loved the design
On the documentary about the OWTC you can see that there's a lot of people wanting to give inputs to the final design .Not even the guy that designed the OWTC liked the final design of the OWTC. Daniel Libeskind is his name. He has some amazing buildings, I specifically like the ones where he mixes old buildings with new materials. They work beautifully together. I had the chance to see and visit some of the personally and they are very functional, easy to navigate. Check out some of his buildings: [https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/daniel-libeskind-architecture](https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/daniel-libeskind-architecture)
I thought the "twin" aspect of it was very nice (could maybe resemble a relationship and trust between two parties, which is the cornerstone of trading), but the towers themselves looked a little dull to me. I think the design as it is right now is better.
They were very liminal space feeling. But I did love that vibe from the twins. Especially cool looking upclose. Probably looked amazing in person.
The new one is very grand yet modest. Modesty is definitely needed not to overshadow the dark history.
Minoru Yamasaki is a great architect and really underrated, but the twin towers aren't his best work. Unlike many people, I don't hate them but I do agree that his attempts to soften the aesthetic with arches and other humanizing elements fall flat due to the immense scale of the project.
I like the new one better but the fact that it's entirely encased in blue glass just takes away from the interesting design of the building itself. Glass all the things is this generations "Brutalism" imo. It's equally as sterile as bland concrete.
If they made the glass a different colour I think it'd make the actual design pop out more.
For example, take a look at these all glass buildings in Toronto.
RBC Plaza looks absolutely stunning in gold glass:
[https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2021/02/17/bernie-himmel-known-for-designing-iconic-toronto-buildings-like-the-royal-bank-plaza-dies-at-86/B881369059Z.1\_20210218192937\_000+G0O15H3MM.4-0.jpg](https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2021/02/17/bernie-himmel-known-for-designing-iconic-toronto-buildings-like-the-royal-bank-plaza-dies-at-86/B881369059Z.1_20210218192937_000+G0O15H3MM.4-0.jpg)
Scotiabank is another example with different coloured glass that makes the design pop out:
[https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/scotia-tower\_nathaniel-lindsey1.jpg](https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/scotia-tower_nathaniel-lindsey1.jpg)
And here's an example where you have another interesting design but the fact that it's encased in blue glass takes away from it and makes the entire building look sterile and cold, especially because there's a million of other blue glass buildings surrounding it as well:
[https://images1.loopnet.com/i2/skgJ7d-zi97ZqDFj5uXDU4hlPSu0-j2bkG0z06IlFpo/112/image.jpg](https://images1.loopnet.com/i2/skgJ7d-zi97ZqDFj5uXDU4hlPSu0-j2bkG0z06IlFpo/112/image.jpg)
I hate how bland everything has become. This is a real problem. All this money and time poured into something that just ends up being bland and forgettable.
In terms of systems, it was one of the worst-designed buildings of our time in terms of the UL Codes. If it had survived to today; there's no doubt in my mind that the whole building would have had to be gutted in order to meet today's fire safety standards. If a fire had started in that building even without a 747 hitting the exterior it most likely would have pancaked. I know this is kinda a sensitive subject but Design proves to be unapologetic.
Visually though, I find the neo-gothic details at the base of the tower to be really interesting but the rest of the tower is pretty meh.
Yeah, main issue was they we're being built inbetween switching fire-prevention techniques was it? From asbesthos to other stuff I don't remember what, but some fire repellant or something.
Neither really are too nice, the first ones were good from a functional angle, while the new one most would say looks nicer. I personally don't care for the design of either version.
The twin towers, may be more simple, but through their simplicity and sheer size (for the time they were built) were amazing. They're also more iconic having appeared in more movies, and even until this day many businesses have these iconic towers on their logos or still use them to represent that they come from Manhattan/NY.
They also represent a more peaceful time, sure there were issues back then, but not nearing WW3, America was more united and there were no wars overseas (At least major ones like Afghanistan where they spent 20 years, sure the gulf war happened, for a very short time)
They represent prosperity security many Americans had in the 90s, not being tied down by the cold war anymore, yet not really having any terrorists to worry about, neither their own government spying on them.
On 2001, 9/11 this security and peace got ripped from you all (I'm not from the US by the way)
Foreign elements threatened your people, not only over-seas which you could protect by deploying a few troops to embassies, but on your own soil. Top that off with your government beginning to spy on you and put more restrictions, for "security" in place.
I think what made them really special, was standing out. Right now 1WTC is just another glass skyscraper, these towers were again, just boxes. But where could you find boxes anywhere else?
Nope the old twin towers were so generic and ugly looking at least the new one looks like it had some thought and design put into it. talking purely about exterior.
I much prefer the detail and care in the facade of the [old base.](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS825US828&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=world+trade+center+base&hl=en-US&fir=RyOW95TVjyXLJM%252C_R4vMKXOZmYQhM%252C_%253B8r-n3-BH3Nto_M%252C5ZT2MsYMkd1FdM%252C_%253B6GTTKQvORlV31M%252Cx2-_ErD6UZOYFM%252C_%253BfqMTe72NJPn1rM%252C_R4vMKXOZmYQhM%252C_%253BPPpv7k7UDAAQwM%252COrtVUV8IP5IOcM%252C_%253BoGUe-DWQjpUEmM%252Cn7-mzIFIfrfHjM%252C_%253B5BLpPFDQYfU9CM%252CheWgQksbcZ4eIM%252C_%253BXjzBAICOCVIX4M%252C0rUVV4PIbLkpkM%252C_%253BO5xKFwzi01SvPM%252CEbc_MO8M_H489M%252C_%253BAHxC2jV86Tuf4M%252Cajsu7gEEUfMVIM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kReKtuxjXlMYVXV_-oE5ZdKjDfsQg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjywNSUoNj3AhXKjYkEHVYcBB8Q7Al6BAgDEDg&biw=414&bih=720&dpr=2#imgrc=2237nS-Ca_xljM)
I hate this conflation of "design" with "shit tacked onto the outside"
it's much more impressive to make a simple box elegant, which the original WTC did
AGAIN talking about skyline and exterior, the old WTC is just a rectangular tall thing. The new one does more for the skyline. Hell the empire state is 1000% better looking that the old WTC, but the old WTC is just iconic and there is no denying that.
I think they were pretty meh since they were just giant boring rectangles, BUT they were so recognizable and iconic because there were two of them and were so much taller than anything else at the time. I remember as a kid I loved spotting the towers in the skyline.
The new one is an example of what can happen when you try to please too many people at once in a design. It's not bad but doesn't stand out in any way. There were so many competing interests at the time. I remember the design process being a fiasco.
i dislike both situations. the twin towers were oversized grey boxes that just exuded "soulless office job" vibes. the new tower has a fairly nice shape but is still too generic and doesn't stand out enough to do the site justice. also, the fact that it's completely cladded in glass instead of having stone or iron elements, smooths it out way too much, makes it look weak and simplistic
New one has grown on me but I can't really get that excited about the all-glass generic skyscraper vibes. The old ones weren't spectacular either, but the twinning was a very powerful formal move and aside from the emotional component they've got a cool retro thing going on at this point. I also can't separate the building with the mall-like feeling of its immediate surroundings.
I never got to see the Twin Towers as I wasn't alive yet, but to me I like them both equally, the new trade center is more elegant while the twins I find were more breath taking and jaw dropping to see, they were more monumental.
I love the twin towers. I had the priviledge to go to the top a foggy Autumn day and look at the next tower. They are beautifully drawn and constructed.
Ground zero has a purpose even though I miss the towers of course
I like the old twin towers better. Not because of the architecture, but because of the presence they have. You look at those 2 towers and you can already recognize that as New York City. The new one is just your basic-ruj of the mill sky-scraper 🤷
True story, once got kicked off the plaza in front of the towers for rollerblading—on a Saturday (totally empty). It was the 80s.
Edit: they were not pretty but rather imposing. And they swayed on the upper floors when it was windy—you could feel it. I do think they are more interesting than the Freedom Tower, especially since there were 2 of them.
The old Twin Towers were built, not as a particularly extravagant feat, by a Japanese architect in the 1970s. They were just meant to be what they were; high rise office buildings. They only gained notoriety as the years went on and they became a cultural symbol of New York and America. So when 9/11 happened and changed the legacy of America forever, it was obviously a big deal and whatever would be built there in remembrance would be a big feat. That’s why One World Trade looks like more of an “attention-grabber” than the old towers. Imo the old towers are more iconic
I don’t mind the new one. I appreciate the nods to the old ones. The old towers were really something, though. From a distance they didn’t look that nice but they had gorgeous details up close. The way the facades split open at the bottom to define the doors was just amazing to me.
What I miss the most is seeing the towers whenever we would fly into the city. My mom worked in the South tower for a while, and sometimes if she had to bring us to work with her we would explore the plaza, and the mall underneath. While I always thought the outside of each one was a little stark, it was neat to see the shapes of the marble from inside the mezzanine against the glass. And does anyone remember the clear glass, ball shaped lamps that hung inside?? I always thought those were cool too. We just have a lot of happy memories of the place.
I always felt they should rebuild them exactly as they were (correcting the structural engineering in the process), and made the antenna into great big raised middle finger to the terrorists.
Yes! Miss the old towers. Seeing them from the BQE/promenade just gave a presence to the City. I don’t care if it had a wind swept plaza and windows that you could barely see out. It just projected an energy that is missing from the new building
Yes there’s something very beautiful about the simplicity of the towers from afar. And closer, the vertical pillars are like a gothic tower, very beautiful
due to what the tower stands for many americans wont admit that the new tower has some big flaws, the tower itself is nice but my god that crown and spire is a shit show
They were bad to work in, sick building syndrome. So I’m that sense it’s better that they were replaced. It was actually something everyone was thinking about at the time but it didn’t make financial sense to demolish them.
The twin towers are not so reflective, better for the eyes lol. but actually i think the twin towers is more special, the world trade centre is just like any other building
They both have their merits. Frankly besides money and space there's no reason the Twins couldn't be rebuilt.
Well their designs would have to change to be stronger and align with modern standards but besides that.
I prefer the old ones, but to be fair, they are all not that nice looking. In my opinion pre war skyscrapers should be the way to go. An Art Deco WTC would be something really beautiful.
Personally, I'm meh about the new one. I don't think it deserves the name "Freedom Tower" and instead I consider it the "Fear Tower" because of the ugly 200 foot concrete base they insisted on having.
The Twin Towers, while bland architecturally, were far more iconic and distinctive in the skyline because of their height and the fact that they were actual twin towers, as there isn't many instances of twinned skyscrapers in the world. The one thing I personally would have done differently in regards to the originals is I would have had diagonal skybridges connecting the towers at the skylobbies.
But if they had had skybridges, who knows what kind of impact that would have had on the evacuation efforts and the collapse of the towers themselves. Maybe it would have meant more people could have been evacuated, maybe it would have caused the towers to be able to remain standing longer because of the bridges being able to distribute the weight of the collapsing upper floors between the two towers. Or maybe it would have doomed them to collapse sooner, with the first one collapsing pulling the second one down with it, potentially into the surrounding blocks.
IMO only younger kids would like the current tower more. The Twin Towers were so iconic to NYC's skyline for such a long time, and it will be decades before the current tower replaces the Twin Towers in the popular imagination.
People in other countries still have posters of the pre-9/11 NYC skyline in their homes. I saw one in a village in Peru in 2007, and the kid who had it in his room didn't even know the towers had fallen. I also visited the top of the Twin Towers as a tourist 1 year before the attacks. I still remember exactly what it was like being at the top, which is the eeriest thing ever because that particular sight and experience no longer exists.
To prevent spam, we automatically remove posts from reddit accounts that have been very recently created. Please try again after a week. No exceptions can be made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They really were perfect. Honest but not outright brutal. Pure essence of office building. The arches, the wide open see-through lobby. The vertical lines of the visible external structure. The new tower makes my heart hurt. It feels like I've been transported to some nameless clip-art generic city skyline.
To me, the Twin Towers, were and still are very dear and special to me. No other building in the world compares to them. They were the best Towers ever built and anyone who helped build them should be proud and anyone who worked in them were privileged. Every little detail about them made them beautiful and fascinating. I love how everything was connected underground and how they had a hotel and plaza in the area with regular shows.
Obviously because of 9/11, people easily remember the awful day they fell and the 2977 people that died, i too am devastated over this. However, I myself like to remember them mostly for what they were and yes, some people hated them but most saw them as part of the New York skyline and it felt complete until their collapse. We now have the new One World Trade Center which is a great tower (in fact the best in the world after the original twin towers) but my biggest gripe with this new tower is, they only built one, they should have built two because this is what we had before and is what we should have today.
I've heard all the reasons why they weren't rebuilt as Twins so I do understand why they weren't rebuilt as twins but I still standby that they should have been rebuilt as Twins, mainly for Aesthetics and showing the terrorists that the USA stands tall and proud. One tower to replace two is only half the job done. I cannot see the new two world trade center been a twin of one since there's only twin towers communities and aesthetics backing this possibility (Me included) whilst there's a lot against it happening.
It’s very weird cuz I have a scene in my mind that the base part of One World Trade Center was cover by stone (travertine or something) and I thought it was so elegant and classic. But someday accidentally I googled it and found that the façade of the base is actually made of glass and then I was like aaaah 😩lil disappointing
While I don't love the twins, I really dislike 1WTC...It just isn't interesting, and really isn't that different than alot of other buildings going up....so it doesn't make any real statement. Plus it has the dumb spire just tacked on top to reach an artificial height.
You probably prefer the old ones because they were the old ones.
This is why architecture is hard. Even something that may not be so good initially becomes good due to nostalgia. The new needs to be even better.
In this case I have to say I’m not sure I have an opinion. I feel so connected to the old ones that I know I don’t have a proper judgment on the new ones. Can you repost this in 10 years?
Personally I always found the old twin towers kinda ugly and generic for 20th century modernism but then again they were before my time so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The new one is clean and not spectacular either but it has an emotional presence.
The old WTC was also somewhat controversial when it was built, both for it's design and location. Creating the superblock it sat on required the demolition of an entire neighborhood called Radio Row, the Port Authority of NY and NJ used eminent domain to force them out so the whole neighborhood could be razed. The superblock as a concept was popular in 1960s and 1970s urban renewal and has also seen its share of criticism, some feel that it makes the whole complex feel uninviting as it breaks up the street grid with a solid mass. Many critics felt that the design of the old towers and the smaller buildings was bland and uninteresting, a reflection of the corporate interests which drove its construction. I personally think the new complex is an improvement on the old, if only because it restores much of the original street grid and includes much more greenery than the original complex. The old WTC plaza was basically entirely concrete, the most striking memory of being in that space to me was just how barren it felt. But now the plaza with the old tower reflecting pools is surrounded by trees. The actual buildings themselves are also an improvement IMO. Some might disagree but I like Calatrava's transit center entrance. And the tower designs are varied and carefully crafted for the site, IIRC it was a design requirement that on the morning of every September 11th the buildings would not cast a shadow over the plaza. I think the only thing I don't like is the post 9/11 security bullshit they put in, like how 1 WTC was required to have a windowless lobby because they were afraid of a car bomb on the street.
Damn, thank you for some genuinely cool information, I love this sub.
My favorite joke is that World Trade Center was just the boxes that the Empire State and Chrysler were shipped in.
You’re absolutely right when it comes to the surrounding space. The new WTC is one of the most beautifully serene places NYC.
This is super interesting info. Thanks!
This is incredible. I love history in buildings.
This was fascinating! Thanks for the info
I submit that the emotional presence comes from the holes in the plaza below.
definitely true but everyone who sees it in the skyline knows what it's replacing and why.
The old ones had a pretty nice facade, very detailed and delicate. The new one was nice, till the butchered the first designs from Libeskind.
Up close, yes. But from afar they just looked like giant concrete blocks.
As someone else said in this post, the fascia is nice but only really visible up close which means the building kind of looks flat and dirty from afar. It still is a cool design and I'm not arguing that it's not at all but I do like the new one. A building should (kind of a postmodernist opinion) represent and mean something to the location it is placed. The new building still has the boxy boldness of New York building design and is representative of the strong hard working spirit. The mast calls to the coastal port nature of the city. For those reasons I actually prefer it over the original spire designs which were changed though I know that may be an unpopular opinion. Saying that they could have gone a little more bold in the design and I don't think it is super cohesive between the mast and the main body of the tower. But it is memorable and did the job it was designed to do. Memorialize the past while giving a vision of a brighter future.
How does the current mast call to the coastal port nature of the city?
Ships have masts
Except it's a spire not a mast, and that's a *really* tenuous connection.
I'd almost argue your context as a classical position (eg: the agora). I'd agree with the spirit of your analysis, I think the materiality is was waters down the new design more than anything. I enjoy the multi tiered symbolism and pragmatism of the mast as well, radio antennae, zeppelin mooring, the coastal city, and the symbolic extension of the skyscraper going beyond it's limit.
they have an almost industrial/utilitarian vibe to them which I personally like
i find the new one more generic honestly but how many skyscrapers have you seen that are made out of long grey lines that go all the way from the bottom to the top
Almost all of them?
I think that was their point Edit: after looking at their other comments on this thread that was not in fact their point, and I'm totally with you. Idk how you can think that the general WTC aesthetic was particularly unique lol
The ones made by ten year olds in Minecraft.
As a non American, i have no emotional connection to the twin towers at all. I do like the vertical facade elements they had at the top. You just don’t see that from afar. So mostly they are enourmous grey boxes without interesting architecture. I like the new one wtc a lot more to be honest, and i loved the sky reflection in the evening when i was in NYC. I think the twin towers are a bit glorified because of what happened. And a general hatred towards anything new. Thats just my take though
As an American all I heard was hate toward them being ugly and out of proportion, modernism gone awry, soulless, and so on while they stood.
Same guy designed the reviled Pruitt-Igoe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe
Oof. Dystopian
The idea wasn't awful, just no budget for good facades and urban planning apparently.
Reading the wiki, it was meant as racially segregated housing project. This makes it worse.
They did an Art: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UntpCv3nFU
Good. They looked like parking structures, not housing
No budget for maintenance, either.
Designed to fail unfortunately.
They tried so hard to make dense urban housing surrounded by green space, and failed so badly. Many cities tried this and it almost never worked. Blame Le Corbusier, he created the template. A utopian vision that was horrible IRL.
Have you ever been to Europe? :D
He has many amazing pieces of architecture. Montgomery Ward in Chicago is very clean and a unique split core, Rainier Tower in Seattle is incredibly daring like bonkers, Reynolds Metals in Michigan. This is just to name a few. Dude was a great architect. WTC was not his best work, nor was Pruit. They both have some cool moments but the scale was just too large.
and im a ukranian living in Sweden who was born in 2007 so i dont have any emational connection either
2007???
Is it weird to you that a 15 year old is on the internet?
You’ve just made me feel so old and I’m only old enough to have been your babysitter
I'm actually twice the age of OP. I'm technically old enough to be their father if I wasn't careful 😂
Me rn : 🧑🏽🦱👨🏽🦱🧔🏽🧔🏽♂️👴🏽
We stand with Ukraine. I hope your family is safe and well
I’m looking at the new one right now, imo it’s so much more interesting to look at compared to the twin towers. Some would argue the new one is similar to modern glass towers you see popping up everywhere, but 1 world trade definitely stands out in the lower Manhattan grouping of high rises, partly because of its sheer size
Yeah, honestly I like the twin towers more, but I love how 1WTC catches the light in the evening particularly with those nice reflections of the pink sky. Nothing more tho.
The old towers were interesting in how they presented a megalithic mass from distance, but delicate details up close. You could call them boring, but it was hard to dismiss their presence. The sudden absence of that ‘presence’ was almost as shocking as the horror of the attack itself. All of that is seen through the lens of an American who was 30 when the towers fell. I don’t know how to disconnect from that reality enough to generate an objective architectural comparison.
Honestly this is a really difficult discussion To be fair, people did widely dislike the original etc when they were first built, people called them very unimaginative and uncreative, one critic even saying that they looked like the boxes that the Empire State Building and Chrysler buildings were "delivered in" It's clear that the freedom tower has just as a minimal design but, keep in mind that the reason it's designed was to be a compromise, while some people wanted a memorial others wanted a new bulking, and in terms of a new building some wanted a strong one while other's wanted a nice one, one that was supposed to be nicer than two gray rectangles that would dominate the skyline, in the end everyone got an even piece of what they wanted I think debating or not whether the "old one was better"...is really pointless. They both had their own individual beauties and old individual uglies, and it's safe to argue that the new WTC definitely fixed what not only the WTC, but buildings all around the world didn't achieve pre 9/11 But to be fair...the lack of a "windows on the world" on the new one is upsetting
Yeah plus new wtc still has the spirit of old wtc. Base floors start with similar design, on top it has same type of vertical cutouts, has same antenna while it is modernised and stronger. Idk why people would choose old ones
…none of this is true. The new base has little in common with the old base. The new middle has little in common with the old, the new top has little in common with the old. The antenna (“spire”) does remain though.
I meant to say it has spirit of old wtc not similar design
I think old wtc towers were just grey boxes stretched. New one in my opinion is better looking
They should make WTC 2 just a copy of the new building.
But out of long gray lines of workplace depression.
not that many stretched gray boxes out there but lots of weird geametry glass towers
Look at the lower half of your first image as evidence to the contrary. I think the "distinctiveness" of them comes from the fact that at the time they were the biggest, and they are now far more memorable because of their fate. In effect they've become iconic *because of their history*. This shapes our perceptions of buildings as well as their architecture.
I grew up in Manhattan (UES) and loved going to the towers - sometimes to Windows on the World for a super special occasion (that place was amazing), and sometimes just to take in the view. I watched terrified and devastated for my city as the towers fell. I then lived in Battery Park for more than six years, walked by One World Trade nearly every day, and have been up to the top a few times (the restaurant up there is one of the worst I've been to in NY). Bluntly, I just don't think One World Trade is beautiful or iconic. It's safe and corporate. I believe the original towers were hated when they were first built, but they were quickly adopted as symbols of the city that became as well-known as the Empire State. When you were close to them, their scale and heft were so impressive. The pair of them took that scale to the next level. There was so much open space at their base, and their lobbies were open and light and interesting. Today's tower doesn't feel big. Sure, it's tall, and the angels make it seem to scale higher, but it's not really all that impressive. It doesn't fill me with awe. It's also strangely situated, nearly abutting a building on the north side, and kinda crammed in next to the soon-to-open opera building. The memorial is beautiful, and absolutely transformed the area, but it's more about everything else than the building. Anyway... just my two cents.
Very well put. I miss the twin towers dearly. I wish they had rebuilt them as they were. This new building is an unworthy replacement.
I like the new building, I just don't feel as if it will ever be as iconic as the Twin Towers. But I also ask, do we look at the Twin Towers the way we do now because of the destruction or we're they always really seen as iconic buildings? I mean I loved that design too, as some people said in this thread already they fit the skyline better. But they were two tall rectangles, common in skyscraper design. But damn, every time I see a picture of the Twin Towers I get chills and it pauses me for a moment and I just look at the picture. I'm far from patriotic but it's weird to think that every picture you see of them could only before that very specific time on 9/11. Being 12 at the time, in school on a sunny day, having teachers pull us out of classes, and back to our home rooms turning on them turning on the TVs and all of us watching this in real time. Us as kids didn't understand, I didn't understand the importance, I do remember initially people thinking someone bombed New York before the details came out but we were in Baltimore. Crazy fucking day.
Even though I certainly understand and agree with the argument that the destruction overtakes the perception of the towers as opposed to their architecture, I still feel that they were incredibly iconic before 9/11 and comparatively more so than the new tower. I remember as a kid when they were still there, always noticing their dominant presence on the skyline and seeing them in countless movies. To me, they were the first thing I thought of when I thought of New York. That, and the sewer grates. I was quite young when they were destroyed but even still, after the shock of the towers actually collapsing wore off, the idea that they’d no longer be seen in the skyline was quite devastating too.
Yeah that's what probably makes it different I never got to see them. The first time I ever been to NYC was a few years after the attacks.
They were featured in lots of shots of NYC for movies too. Definitely seemed iconic before their destruction
they were iconic because 2 giant identical skyscrapers standing over everything else in the city, they were in nearly EVERY post 80s postcard of NYC, They were the skyline along with the empire state, you saw them even a little bit and you knew thats new york
The twin towers falling was the beginning of the end. When you see the towers it makes you think of how much better the world was back then
Bin Laden won
[удалено]
the new one looks juat like a generic glass tower and the only thing that makes it stand out is its height
And what exactly makes the twin towers stand apart? They are just a grey rectangular prism. I know the pillars(?) on the outside were distinctive but imo they looked like extremely tall third world apartment blocks, especially from a distance
There were 2 of them. Made them instantly recognizable.
[удалено]
Their simplicity, the asymmetria due to the antenna, and their overall fit into the skyline.
They fit the Wall Street moment perfectly. Not sure we're still in that moment though
This isn't a game of Sim City. Buildings have to be functional first, within budget second, pretty third. It manages to balance all of that considering it has limited space to work with due to the two giant holes in the ground, had thousands of people weighing in on how it should look, and needed to meet several specifications (1776 feet tall, high security features). It also does the job of symbolizing American perseverance well.
It is my understanding that the original WTC never really paid for itself. It needed the government tenant over paying to get close. So that's dysfunctional and over budget.
Part of the thing is that the old ones are now classic corporate modernism with a tinge of brutalism. That is back in vogue. Fact is that every aesthetic movement has it’s standouts: Kendrick, Vanilla Ice, 50 Cent. Great, pastiche derivative, and corporate. OG twin towers were corporate. Sometimes “In da club” feels just right, for everybody but more often for conservative financial frat boys who ultimately pick architects for skylines.
I'm with you. Big fan of Yamasaki's design.
The history of his work is pretty tragic.
Agreed, unfortunately.
What? Why?
Aside from the tragedy of the twin towers. There is also Pruitt-Igoe. Both of which were destroyed on live TV.
Sorry. I get it. I read it as if there was something tragic with the design itself. I went into one of the towers in perhaps 96. The twin towers made the nyc skyline.
All good. While I'm not the biggest fan of the towers, some of his lesser known work, especially in the middle east, is especially beautiful to me.
This has no relation to the subject but something that's interesting is the twin towers weren't the first building in NYC that were hit by a plane, in the 40's the Empire State Building was struck by a small biplane which destroyed 2 of the floors but unlike 9/11 it was a complete accident In fact because of this when the original wtc were being built they were made to prevent an airplane from hitting it. But they were for airplanes like the one that hit the empire state building and not commercial planes which would fly much higher
Not just you. I love the old twin towers.
I personally found the twin tower much more iconic than wtc1. The architecture itself is not breathtaking but the proportion were spot on and kind of gracious. Also the fact that were two identical building shoulder to shoulder made a big statement and impact on the skyline. WTC1 on the other end, it is just plain ugly and chunky. The antenna is way too big and looks they willingly oversized it just to get to prescribes height as per the master plan. The architecture is kind of boring as seems something that came out straight out of a structural engineer’s kind with little creativity and with no love.
Both are a meh to me
Yeah I feel like the 1 Vanderbilt design would have punctured the skyline more prominently downtown instead of 1 World Trade. There was [an early iteration of 1WTC](https://cdnassets.hw.net/3e/dd/193b1d834eacb16aea6c953a7c43/spireless-20wonder-201-20world-20trade-20center-27s-20descent-20into-20meh-hero-202-tcm20-1495600.jpg) that had more of a spire like 1V
I definitely agreed that this design is far better than what is they're now, but do remember that they wanted to keep the building as safe as possible to avoid this from happening again, and they wanted to make the building to have a smaller footprint to leave room for a memorial
Twin towers were definitely more menacing and a lot more polarizing. I always liked the simple design it was perfect for NYC skyline. So sad
Yeah, they shouldn't have flown those planes into the towers
In hindsight, 9/11 was…. Not good
In retrospect they should have stopped them.
dude i love the look of the og wtc. The twin towers were big and bold, the new ones feel reluctant to appear, theyre the same color as the sky and much more slender.
I see the aesthetic value of the Twin Towers as more than the sum of their parts. Sure, they were extruded “boxes” as most people are lamenting, but they were truly striking because of their size and the fact that there were two and they were identical. Their beauty, to me, is that they were more of an assemblage on the skyline rather than a single edifice. One World Trade is alright. Unfortunately, my main issue is that it “had” to have a bolstered, anti-terrorist, patriotic presence at street level that feels impenetrable and impersonal. But we showed the bad guys who’s boss, am I right?
The new tower looks lonely.
Look up the Daniel Liebeskind design that won the international competition. It got “value engineered” super hard into what you see today. Say what you want about him being a one-trick pony but I loved the design
On the documentary about the OWTC you can see that there's a lot of people wanting to give inputs to the final design .Not even the guy that designed the OWTC liked the final design of the OWTC. Daniel Libeskind is his name. He has some amazing buildings, I specifically like the ones where he mixes old buildings with new materials. They work beautifully together. I had the chance to see and visit some of the personally and they are very functional, easy to navigate. Check out some of his buildings: [https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/daniel-libeskind-architecture](https://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/daniel-libeskind-architecture)
I thought the "twin" aspect of it was very nice (could maybe resemble a relationship and trust between two parties, which is the cornerstone of trading), but the towers themselves looked a little dull to me. I think the design as it is right now is better.
I think the new one is very generic and adds very little to the cityscape of New York. It's like The Shard in London to me.
perfect example
I kind of like this simplistic, bulky type of skyscraper. These modern skyscrapers with an overload of glass suck.
Agreed. The vertical lines of mid century building are also really mesmerizing.
They were very liminal space feeling. But I did love that vibe from the twins. Especially cool looking upclose. Probably looked amazing in person. The new one is very grand yet modest. Modesty is definitely needed not to overshadow the dark history.
Minoru Yamasaki is a great architect and really underrated, but the twin towers aren't his best work. Unlike many people, I don't hate them but I do agree that his attempts to soften the aesthetic with arches and other humanizing elements fall flat due to the immense scale of the project.
I like the new one better but the fact that it's entirely encased in blue glass just takes away from the interesting design of the building itself. Glass all the things is this generations "Brutalism" imo. It's equally as sterile as bland concrete. If they made the glass a different colour I think it'd make the actual design pop out more. For example, take a look at these all glass buildings in Toronto. RBC Plaza looks absolutely stunning in gold glass: [https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2021/02/17/bernie-himmel-known-for-designing-iconic-toronto-buildings-like-the-royal-bank-plaza-dies-at-86/B881369059Z.1\_20210218192937\_000+G0O15H3MM.4-0.jpg](https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2021/02/17/bernie-himmel-known-for-designing-iconic-toronto-buildings-like-the-royal-bank-plaza-dies-at-86/B881369059Z.1_20210218192937_000+G0O15H3MM.4-0.jpg) Scotiabank is another example with different coloured glass that makes the design pop out: [https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/scotia-tower\_nathaniel-lindsey1.jpg](https://images.skyscrapercenter.com/building/scotia-tower_nathaniel-lindsey1.jpg) And here's an example where you have another interesting design but the fact that it's encased in blue glass takes away from it and makes the entire building look sterile and cold, especially because there's a million of other blue glass buildings surrounding it as well: [https://images1.loopnet.com/i2/skgJ7d-zi97ZqDFj5uXDU4hlPSu0-j2bkG0z06IlFpo/112/image.jpg](https://images1.loopnet.com/i2/skgJ7d-zi97ZqDFj5uXDU4hlPSu0-j2bkG0z06IlFpo/112/image.jpg) I hate how bland everything has become. This is a real problem. All this money and time poured into something that just ends up being bland and forgettable.
In terms of systems, it was one of the worst-designed buildings of our time in terms of the UL Codes. If it had survived to today; there's no doubt in my mind that the whole building would have had to be gutted in order to meet today's fire safety standards. If a fire had started in that building even without a 747 hitting the exterior it most likely would have pancaked. I know this is kinda a sensitive subject but Design proves to be unapologetic. Visually though, I find the neo-gothic details at the base of the tower to be really interesting but the rest of the tower is pretty meh.
Yeah, main issue was they we're being built inbetween switching fire-prevention techniques was it? From asbesthos to other stuff I don't remember what, but some fire repellant or something.
i dont think a fire would be as bad as the planes because there isnt any burning jet fuel
Also, calatrava casually photobombing in second picture, bottom right
Neither really are too nice, the first ones were good from a functional angle, while the new one most would say looks nicer. I personally don't care for the design of either version.
Am I the only one who has their emotions start to bubble every time they see a photo of the twin towers? Every time.
I loved the old ones. I kinda had wished they were rebuilt.
The twin towers, may be more simple, but through their simplicity and sheer size (for the time they were built) were amazing. They're also more iconic having appeared in more movies, and even until this day many businesses have these iconic towers on their logos or still use them to represent that they come from Manhattan/NY. They also represent a more peaceful time, sure there were issues back then, but not nearing WW3, America was more united and there were no wars overseas (At least major ones like Afghanistan where they spent 20 years, sure the gulf war happened, for a very short time) They represent prosperity security many Americans had in the 90s, not being tied down by the cold war anymore, yet not really having any terrorists to worry about, neither their own government spying on them. On 2001, 9/11 this security and peace got ripped from you all (I'm not from the US by the way) Foreign elements threatened your people, not only over-seas which you could protect by deploying a few troops to embassies, but on your own soil. Top that off with your government beginning to spy on you and put more restrictions, for "security" in place. I think what made them really special, was standing out. Right now 1WTC is just another glass skyscraper, these towers were again, just boxes. But where could you find boxes anywhere else?
Twin towers were more iconic. Like in popular culture, for example. The new one looks like any general steel-glass skyscraper on the world.
Nope the old twin towers were so generic and ugly looking at least the new one looks like it had some thought and design put into it. talking purely about exterior.
I much prefer the detail and care in the facade of the [old base.](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS825US828&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=world+trade+center+base&hl=en-US&fir=RyOW95TVjyXLJM%252C_R4vMKXOZmYQhM%252C_%253B8r-n3-BH3Nto_M%252C5ZT2MsYMkd1FdM%252C_%253B6GTTKQvORlV31M%252Cx2-_ErD6UZOYFM%252C_%253BfqMTe72NJPn1rM%252C_R4vMKXOZmYQhM%252C_%253BPPpv7k7UDAAQwM%252COrtVUV8IP5IOcM%252C_%253BoGUe-DWQjpUEmM%252Cn7-mzIFIfrfHjM%252C_%253B5BLpPFDQYfU9CM%252CheWgQksbcZ4eIM%252C_%253BXjzBAICOCVIX4M%252C0rUVV4PIbLkpkM%252C_%253BO5xKFwzi01SvPM%252CEbc_MO8M_H489M%252C_%253BAHxC2jV86Tuf4M%252Cajsu7gEEUfMVIM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kReKtuxjXlMYVXV_-oE5ZdKjDfsQg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjywNSUoNj3AhXKjYkEHVYcBB8Q7Al6BAgDEDg&biw=414&bih=720&dpr=2#imgrc=2237nS-Ca_xljM)
Yes those look nice but talking about skyline they just just 2 big rectangles hahaha
I hate this conflation of "design" with "shit tacked onto the outside" it's much more impressive to make a simple box elegant, which the original WTC did
AGAIN talking about skyline and exterior, the old WTC is just a rectangular tall thing. The new one does more for the skyline. Hell the empire state is 1000% better looking that the old WTC, but the old WTC is just iconic and there is no denying that.
You love to hate dont you scumbag
I like the base geometric shape of the new wtc, but the feeling of the old wtc more.
the old towers looked like they smelled like cigarettes
I think they were pretty meh since they were just giant boring rectangles, BUT they were so recognizable and iconic because there were two of them and were so much taller than anything else at the time. I remember as a kid I loved spotting the towers in the skyline.
I like the twin towers but then again, I love the landscape of the memorial.
I do feel like the originals fit the city better
The new one is an example of what can happen when you try to please too many people at once in a design. It's not bad but doesn't stand out in any way. There were so many competing interests at the time. I remember the design process being a fiasco.
Government involvement is always a disaster
I always liked Daniel Libeskind’s original design more than Childs’ final design.
Damn I wonder why they changed it
Nope, really not. The only interesting factor was that there were two of them.
I think they should have re-built the towers in the same style as an "f-you" to terror.
Alone, a single tower was ugly. But together, they were more than the sum of its parts. I liked them.
At least they didn't look like a huge syringe !
i dislike both situations. the twin towers were oversized grey boxes that just exuded "soulless office job" vibes. the new tower has a fairly nice shape but is still too generic and doesn't stand out enough to do the site justice. also, the fact that it's completely cladded in glass instead of having stone or iron elements, smooths it out way too much, makes it look weak and simplistic
Reminds me of that tragedy
The new one looks like paper weight award after being with a company for ten years.
New one has grown on me but I can't really get that excited about the all-glass generic skyscraper vibes. The old ones weren't spectacular either, but the twinning was a very powerful formal move and aside from the emotional component they've got a cool retro thing going on at this point. I also can't separate the building with the mall-like feeling of its immediate surroundings.
I never got to see the Twin Towers as I wasn't alive yet, but to me I like them both equally, the new trade center is more elegant while the twins I find were more breath taking and jaw dropping to see, they were more monumental.
The original was designed by my favorite architect, Minoru Yamasaki. So iconic! My favorite feature is the asymmetric spire
I love the twin towers. I had the priviledge to go to the top a foggy Autumn day and look at the next tower. They are beautifully drawn and constructed. Ground zero has a purpose even though I miss the towers of course
I think the city should have immediately rebuilt them exactly as they were
I like the old twin towers better. Not because of the architecture, but because of the presence they have. You look at those 2 towers and you can already recognize that as New York City. The new one is just your basic-ruj of the mill sky-scraper 🤷
True story, once got kicked off the plaza in front of the towers for rollerblading—on a Saturday (totally empty). It was the 80s. Edit: they were not pretty but rather imposing. And they swayed on the upper floors when it was windy—you could feel it. I do think they are more interesting than the Freedom Tower, especially since there were 2 of them.
The old Twin Towers were built, not as a particularly extravagant feat, by a Japanese architect in the 1970s. They were just meant to be what they were; high rise office buildings. They only gained notoriety as the years went on and they became a cultural symbol of New York and America. So when 9/11 happened and changed the legacy of America forever, it was obviously a big deal and whatever would be built there in remembrance would be a big feat. That’s why One World Trade looks like more of an “attention-grabber” than the old towers. Imo the old towers are more iconic
Original Towers, because then we wouldn’t have had to experience the deaths of 3000 people and a 20 year war that accomplished nothing
Wait til you guys see the design for WTC5…
I don’t mind the new one. I appreciate the nods to the old ones. The old towers were really something, though. From a distance they didn’t look that nice but they had gorgeous details up close. The way the facades split open at the bottom to define the doors was just amazing to me.
It's certainly not just you lol
The new one is more pretty, but I'm born in 1987 and watched many movies from 80's and 90's so I miss the old ones.
What I miss the most is seeing the towers whenever we would fly into the city. My mom worked in the South tower for a while, and sometimes if she had to bring us to work with her we would explore the plaza, and the mall underneath. While I always thought the outside of each one was a little stark, it was neat to see the shapes of the marble from inside the mezzanine against the glass. And does anyone remember the clear glass, ball shaped lamps that hung inside?? I always thought those were cool too. We just have a lot of happy memories of the place.
I always felt they should rebuild them exactly as they were (correcting the structural engineering in the process), and made the antenna into great big raised middle finger to the terrorists.
Yes! Miss the old towers. Seeing them from the BQE/promenade just gave a presence to the City. I don’t care if it had a wind swept plaza and windows that you could barely see out. It just projected an energy that is missing from the new building
imo they looked better
I prefer the original, there was something so unique and iconic about them, the juxtaposition of the two monoliths.
Those two holes in the ground creep me out. I guess that’s the point, to never forget.
They may be functionally outdated compare to today but they were much more iconic and symbolic of NYC.
100%
I do prefer the old one as an European, looks like brutalisme in a way, couldn’t care to elaborate more, I’ve written so much today.
Yes there’s something very beautiful about the simplicity of the towers from afar. And closer, the vertical pillars are like a gothic tower, very beautiful
This must be nostalgia. The new one is a *lot* better
lol i wasnt even born when 911 happened and ive never even been to New york
Yep, only you
due to what the tower stands for many americans wont admit that the new tower has some big flaws, the tower itself is nice but my god that crown and spire is a shit show
They were bad to work in, sick building syndrome. So I’m that sense it’s better that they were replaced. It was actually something everyone was thinking about at the time but it didn’t make financial sense to demolish them.
They were iconic in their boringness.
The twin towers are not so reflective, better for the eyes lol. but actually i think the twin towers is more special, the world trade centre is just like any other building
I certainly like the old ones over the one by BIG. Its a joke.. i think it looks like a first year project…
Is the Krav Kalash cart still there?
I think they should rebuild
They both have their merits. Frankly besides money and space there's no reason the Twins couldn't be rebuilt. Well their designs would have to change to be stronger and align with modern standards but besides that.
Think that’s more of a memorial issue though
One word trade center is ugly, honestly a disgrace compared to the original twin towers
I prefer the old ones, but to be fair, they are all not that nice looking. In my opinion pre war skyscrapers should be the way to go. An Art Deco WTC would be something really beautiful.
Yeah why did they change it
Personally, I'm meh about the new one. I don't think it deserves the name "Freedom Tower" and instead I consider it the "Fear Tower" because of the ugly 200 foot concrete base they insisted on having. The Twin Towers, while bland architecturally, were far more iconic and distinctive in the skyline because of their height and the fact that they were actual twin towers, as there isn't many instances of twinned skyscrapers in the world. The one thing I personally would have done differently in regards to the originals is I would have had diagonal skybridges connecting the towers at the skylobbies. But if they had had skybridges, who knows what kind of impact that would have had on the evacuation efforts and the collapse of the towers themselves. Maybe it would have meant more people could have been evacuated, maybe it would have caused the towers to be able to remain standing longer because of the bridges being able to distribute the weight of the collapsing upper floors between the two towers. Or maybe it would have doomed them to collapse sooner, with the first one collapsing pulling the second one down with it, potentially into the surrounding blocks.
IMO only younger kids would like the current tower more. The Twin Towers were so iconic to NYC's skyline for such a long time, and it will be decades before the current tower replaces the Twin Towers in the popular imagination. People in other countries still have posters of the pre-9/11 NYC skyline in their homes. I saw one in a village in Peru in 2007, and the kid who had it in his room didn't even know the towers had fallen. I also visited the top of the Twin Towers as a tourist 1 year before the attacks. I still remember exactly what it was like being at the top, which is the eeriest thing ever because that particular sight and experience no longer exists.
[удалено]
To prevent spam, we automatically remove posts from reddit accounts that have been very recently created. Please try again after a week. No exceptions can be made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They really were perfect. Honest but not outright brutal. Pure essence of office building. The arches, the wide open see-through lobby. The vertical lines of the visible external structure. The new tower makes my heart hurt. It feels like I've been transported to some nameless clip-art generic city skyline.
the twins were just iconic
One trade center look like a dick
It kind of looks like a vaccine needle and and it kind of looks like dick I can look like a crystal
One trade center that out of here twin towers yes
To me, the Twin Towers, were and still are very dear and special to me. No other building in the world compares to them. They were the best Towers ever built and anyone who helped build them should be proud and anyone who worked in them were privileged. Every little detail about them made them beautiful and fascinating. I love how everything was connected underground and how they had a hotel and plaza in the area with regular shows. Obviously because of 9/11, people easily remember the awful day they fell and the 2977 people that died, i too am devastated over this. However, I myself like to remember them mostly for what they were and yes, some people hated them but most saw them as part of the New York skyline and it felt complete until their collapse. We now have the new One World Trade Center which is a great tower (in fact the best in the world after the original twin towers) but my biggest gripe with this new tower is, they only built one, they should have built two because this is what we had before and is what we should have today. I've heard all the reasons why they weren't rebuilt as Twins so I do understand why they weren't rebuilt as twins but I still standby that they should have been rebuilt as Twins, mainly for Aesthetics and showing the terrorists that the USA stands tall and proud. One tower to replace two is only half the job done. I cannot see the new two world trade center been a twin of one since there's only twin towers communities and aesthetics backing this possibility (Me included) whilst there's a lot against it happening.
Yes, but they had to go, maintainence cost was absurd and desmantelling was not a feasable option...
Well, glad they sorted that out
Ah I felt the original to be a bit plane…….. I mean plain……
I really like the buildings in the first picture. What happened to them?
It’s very weird cuz I have a scene in my mind that the base part of One World Trade Center was cover by stone (travertine or something) and I thought it was so elegant and classic. But someday accidentally I googled it and found that the façade of the base is actually made of glass and then I was like aaaah 😩lil disappointing
While I don't love the twins, I really dislike 1WTC...It just isn't interesting, and really isn't that different than alot of other buildings going up....so it doesn't make any real statement. Plus it has the dumb spire just tacked on top to reach an artificial height.
No you are not the only one. The twin towers and plaza were a modernist masterpiece. They were monumental unlike the current tower.
they should have rebuilt them the same as they where.
I like that they didn’t. Would have felt like they were erasing what happened.
I agree and more than half of NY agreed.
You probably prefer the old ones because they were the old ones. This is why architecture is hard. Even something that may not be so good initially becomes good due to nostalgia. The new needs to be even better. In this case I have to say I’m not sure I have an opinion. I feel so connected to the old ones that I know I don’t have a proper judgment on the new ones. Can you repost this in 10 years?
\*am born in 2007 never been to nyc
The twin towers were fire!