Thursday, November 15, 2007
The Height of Ambition
So what did you guys think about the article? Really, it reminded me about all the times when a great idea I had just crumbled before my eyes. But I can't even imagine what it could feel like to have built the towers, which did become a symbol of new york if not the entire country, and then watch it get destroyed. Then he places the blame on himself - The death toll would soar to 2,800 people -- many of them,'' a devastated Robertson would write, ''snuffed out by the collapse of structures designed by me.'' - I would attribute this to hindsight, but that's still a whole lot on his shoulders. I personally think that they did the best they could with the technology they had, but that's still not stopping the builders and designers from thinking that the deaths of thousands were caused by their own faults and lack of foresight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
While reading the article it seemed to me like there were so many little things that didn’t fit or didn’t work with the design and logistics that it would have made more sense for them to stop building the world’s tallest buildings, and instead construct something that made more sense. It’s easy to say that now knowing that the towers eventually were destroyed instead of having thrived, but it was almost like every step of progress they made in the building and design, they took two steps backwards. Everything from the objections from places like New Jersey and Radio Row, to the agonizing preparation in fulfilling the Program’s goals, to the architectural criticisms, to the problems with wind, economics, fire, and motion sickness retarded their eventual goal, and you would think would have raised a red flag. However, if it weren’t the twin towers in New York it would have been another building somewhere else that became the tallest in the world, and would have faced the same problems. I guess that because our country seems to enforce the idea that bigger is better this same situation easily could have happened somewhere else and from now on we need to remember that safety needs to come before aesthetics or a national symbol. Overall I don’t doubt that the architects and engineers of the twin towers did the best job they could at the time, it just seemed like there was a lot of opposition and things not going their way to continue on with such a project.
"While reading the article it seemed to me like there were so many little things that didn’t fit or didn’t work with the design and logistics that it would have made more sense for them to stop building the world’s tallest buildings, and instead construct something that made more sense."
But that was the whole idea of the Gigantism pushing the project forward. Nothing this big had ever been created before and just the dream of something that big pushed all those involved to keep working. While it may have seemed that Tozzoli and his nonnegotiable program was guiding and pushing the project, Tozzoli was being influenced by the dream of creating something bigger than the world has ever seen.
"from now on we need to remember that safety needs to come before aesthetics or a national symbol."
May be a bit off topic, but have you heard about that new building for that broadcasting company in China? From what I understand, they are trying to get it built before the olympics, and it may become one of their "national symbol". would you relate their idea of grandness now to ours back then? I mean, they are trying to build a very strangely shaped structure that would not be allowed in the united states (China apparently has next to nothing when it comes to safety regulations for buildings) in a city that gets plenty of earthquakes.
It's very difficult to foresee such disasters as the catastrophe of September 11th. In the constructing of the World Trade Center, problems did arise that probably should have been more carefully examined. The thin sheets of metal towards the top, the use of gypsum and weaker materials due to expense cut and time limits, the faulty fireproofing elements, if addressed and fully tested probably could have increased the chance of survival for many victims. But Robertson who seems to blame himself, did his job, installing 1100 shock absobers in each building, claiming to have tested the force of the impact of an airplane, designed an innovative but generally sturdy structure. No one could even fathom a situation as severe as September 11th. The dangers that seem so emminent today may not have seemed as prominent at the time of construction. Caught up in impressing, "gigantism", the push to boost economy and give New York prominence in the world, jaded the dangers and possible catastrophe. The expanse of these men's American dream and their determination may have diverted their eyes from the probibility of harsh future perils. We can only imagine "what if" they were built diffeently, but we will never know for sure. No one and no thing i can ever be absolutely perfect.
I think this article was one of the most interesting readings so far. I found it odd that a building that experienced so many difficulties during its design, construction, and opening would become a symbol of the economic power of New York. It was also amazing to read that a 9/11 type incident had been hypothesized by one of the opponents to the world trade center's construction. I do not believe by any means that this was an attempt to predict the terrorist attacks nor that it should have been taken as one, but those heading the project certainly should have paid more attention to the concerns raised by the opposition.
My initial impression from the article was that there was not enough planning done to ensure the safety of the building to predict the potential problems that would be faced by the workers during construction as well as by the residents later on. The trade center's extreme size was decided on purely for the sake of gigantism and for showing off America's "dominance" in the world. This in itself seems to be a far more probable reason for its targeting by the 9/11 terrorists than other that have been mentioned in class.
Certainly the problems discussed by the articles could be seen as unavoidable considering the engineering leaps that were being taken, but in my opinion, a project of this kind of scale required far more planning and attention that what seemed to have been given. Granted, it is easy to criticize given the issues that we now know were present in the WTC design, but one would still expect more forethought and testing of products on the part of the project planners. It must be said, though, that such problems discovered as the minimal amount of fire retardant on the steel framework and the lack of air pressurization and lighting in the stairways, were addressed well and promptly.
Overall, I mostly agree with those who have posted so far. The architects and engineers on the WTC project did a decent job of building the towers, even though more time could and should have been spent on planning. But it would be impossible to predict an attack of the scale of 9/11 to protect the towers against.
In regard to the question that was posed in class: Would it be right to rebuild on the same site of the WTC, and if so, would it be wise to attempt to build with the same large scale ?
I think that it is very necessary to rebuild on the same site. The twin towers of the World Trade Center had been a part of the New York skyline for so many years and now the empty space they left behind is just a constant reminder of the tragedy that occurred. I think that part of the process of overcoming what happened is to rebuild and prove that we are not easily discouraged or beaten. The World Trade Center was not only a vital part of the skyline, but an important symbol of our economy. I think that it is important to reconstruct a building that will fulfill both of these needs.
Although I am certain that another building should be constructed on the site, I am not sure if it would be intelligent to build on the same scale. The buildings were so magestic and smartly constructed, but their dangerous flaws became obviously apparent on September 11. I would suggest constructing buildings of the same size if it weren't for the question in my mind-- is it really humanly possible to create a building of that height that is safe from an aerial attack? It would not make sense to build two more 110 story skyscrapers when we know the threat that is posed against them. On the other hand, what if an engineer were to propose a design, using newer technology than was accessible in the 1960's, that was scientifically proven to be safe ? In this case I would definitely support building the skyscrapers.
Another issue that must be considered is the opinion of the public. The people of New York may not want another terrorist target built on the same site of the WTC, especially not one of the same scale as the twin towers. Also, who would be willing to work in the new buildings after witnessing the fate of the people who worked in there before them ? All I have to say is that the PR people of the new project would definitely have their work cut out for them.
While there is plenty of discussion regarding what should be built in place of the towers or if anything should be built at all, I personally do oppose any of the plans suggested. I think that anything that is constructed on the site must have the remembrance of the tragedy, the citizens who died, and the brave firemen and police officers in mind. Whether exact replicas are built or completely newly designed structures, it is important that the memory of September 11th is not lost.
There are clear pros and cons to every idea presented. For example, if you build exact replicas of the Twin Towers, even with the advances of new technology, will people be willing to work in the higher floors? Also, with the plan of erecting smaller building, it must be addressed whether people will be opposed to not rectifying the famous skyline.
There are many possibilities for what will be in place of the World Trade Towers in the future. Perhaps ideas should be presented and the people of New York should be allowed to determine the fate of the site.
I disagree with the idea to build anything on the site of where the World Trade Centers once stood except a memorial. Although it is disheartening to see, I think that the vacant lot serving as a constant reminder that we were attacked and that these terrible things did happen to our country is necessary. We have talked about how patriotism and remembrance has heavily declined since September 11th, and I believe that if another building were to fill the New York skyline, American citizens would push 9/11 even further back into their memories to where it no longer affected them at all. I personally don’t think we need humongous buildings to prove that we are powerful and economically stable, and I much rather live in a country that holds reverence above status.
I disagree that ground zero should be converted into a huge memorial. While a great memorial is certainly necessary,there is more than enough space at ground zero for a combination of a memorial and a new office complex. Plus, this is a capitalist country and whether it sounds right or not an office tower is more profitable and better for the economy than a tower.
I think a tower even taller than the 110-story World Trade Towers would be a great patriotic statement. The new tower could have a huge flag on top and become a symbol of our country. The tower would have to be built with security in mind, which I'm sure anything built on ground zero will be. While security is necessary in both designing and protecting the tower, every skyscraper in the world is vulnerable to huge airliners. In that sense the tall tower idea comes down to whether or not you're confident in airline security.
Unfortunatly, there are many people who could be blamed for the mistakes made while constructing the Twin Towers. Because the towers were designed to revolutionize the way sky scrapers were constructed, safetly might have been sacrificed. In the future we must learn that innovation cannot exclude guidelines and limitations but must find a way to grow using those guidelines. Initially, when the World Trade Center collapsed, many Americans (myself included) immediatly screamed that the towers should be reconstructed and built even taller. However, i know believe that this would not be an appropriate use for the land. ground Zero must memorialize all the lives lost on September 11th. I believe that a monument honoring those who perished is more important than refusing to rebuild because of the recreation of a terrorist target. Ground Zero also is too emotional of a place to build another office building on. Instead, it should forever pay homage to the fear, bravery and patriotism that erupted for the earth on that day.
I personally have no strong feelings on either side of this issue, but would definitely lean toward building a new complex in the place of the World Trade Center. I agree with Sara in that while the 9/11 attacks should not be forgotten, it is necessary to move forward and display the American resilience through rebuilding. While a memorial is important for remembrance of the tragedy and of all those who died in the attacks, it does not make sense to set aside all of the 16 acres of the old World Trade Center complex for a memorial. That being said, I would support the construction of a new building complex along side a significant WTC memorial.
If I am not mistaken, there is already a rebuilding project that has been decided on, which would consist of several buildings, 3 towers (one of which would be taller than the old World Trade Center), and a large park and WTC memorial. I believe this to be a sufficient compromise between reconstruction and memorial. Personally, though, I feel that some of the symbolic inclusions of the project, namely calling the main tower the Freedom Tower which will be 1,776 feet tall, is a bit much though.
Additionally, regarding the mention of the feasibility of a construction project with the same scale as the old WTC, there are many buildings in the world that have matched and surpassed the Trade Centers in size and height, including the Sears Tower, the Petronas Twin Towers, Taipei 101, and the upcoming Burj Dubai. Technology has advanced greatly since the WTC was built, and as we now know the types of precautions that must be taken to safely build high-rise towers with the threat of terrorism, I believe that safe towers with the same scale of the World Trade Center are quite feasible.
I certainly think that a monument should be constructed at the site of the attacks, but I dont understand why the monument would have to be seperate from any skyscraper or office space built at the site. I think that the best monument would be one that is in itself a skyscraper, with the names of the victims of the attack at WTC engraved into the building itself. Of course, the building would have to give due respect to the victims, perhaps devoting a floors space to a monument and a small September 11th museum. Also if the tower could be built a bit off of the "footprints" of the old towers, the dual water pool idea could fit in quite nicely.
This would also send the message that fear won't rule our country. If we now shy away from building large buildings because of fear of attack, in a way the terrorists have won, as they are now governing what we will and won't do.
Post a Comment