I'd like to see more of the libeskind one and less of the united architects one. they are both OK.
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 19 December 2002 08:34 (twenty-three years ago)
― suzy (suzy), Thursday, 19 December 2002 08:36 (twenty-three years ago)
this page has one view and a little blurb for each.
another.
a few of the designs have buildings taller than the twin towers. one or two have designs to be the tallest in the world. I didn't think these were economical at all, these days.
the united one looks stupid in the skyline, I think. but the views I've seen within it at ground level are pretty interesting.
the foster one is just ugly. just now.
the skidmore, owings & merrill looks OK...but they don't describe it very well.
they don't show the libeskind one too well either.
I don't like the *think one even though I'd almost like to.
there'll be some better pages soon, I hope.
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 19 December 2002 09:01 (twenty-three years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 19 December 2002 09:03 (twenty-three years ago)
the united one and meier---holl one and the SOM one [to an extent] all making a deal about multiple routes down+out.
the foster one looking like it's not stable and encorporating a ground level dallas-kennedy memorial-esque memorial.
the united one is very ugly at its extent. interesting lower down...but making itself like there's a horrible effort to reach its height and for nothing. and then telling us that, maybe, it doesn't need to reach quite as high and that that is a STRENGTH. get lost.
the SOM one is crowded yet attractive. and, again, saying it doesn't need to be all that. unfortunately.
the peterson/littenberg one is boring even though I like parts of its parts.
maybe I like the *think one more than I thought. and maybe not as much as I will.
the libeskind is the usual. or the unusual. I like it well enough but it is a little heavyhanded in its lightness.
the meier---holl is still my favourite even though it claims a supercrap generator. it appeals to my brutalistical tendancies--it is pretty. arches. gaps.
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 19 December 2002 14:02 (twenty-three years ago)
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 19 December 2002 19:31 (twenty-three years ago)
Why must architects insist on building some gigantic monstrosity? Why not a humble little something? Eh, my opinion isn't really that relevant on this, I've never even aspired to pretend to be an architect.
― nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 19 December 2002 19:37 (twenty-three years ago)
Nickalicious, the first set of proposals were rejected for not being dramatic and memorable enough. I think it is felt that they need to show confidence and be a major marker and memorial.
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 19 December 2002 21:06 (twenty-three years ago)
― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Thursday, 19 December 2002 21:50 (twenty-three years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 20 December 2002 04:23 (twenty-three years ago)
http://blackbag.gawker.com/the-ground-zero-mosque-was-an-inside-job-1633321283/+laceydonohue
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 12 September 2014 12:05 (eleven years ago)