Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay. The Empire State Building "is" the tallest in New York City. 20s or 30s, my point is the same.
The point is that the whole culture of strutting around the lockerroom to see who has the biggest skyscraper is a game for young adolescent economies. Let Dubai and China play those silly games to prove their worth. That's what America did when industrialism was centered here. Now it's not.
You don't see London or Paris or Berlin or any other mature economy playing those games. There's no need for it. Chicago certainly doesn't need the Sears Tower and New York probably doesn't need another WTC, economically speaking. Doesn't matter, though. 70 floors, 110. At a certain point it's all the same. It's a big building.
I don't care what anybody says the world trade center was destroyed 9/11/01. The Freedom Tower is greatly needed in downtown and Obama has nothing to do with it. The only president that matters in the issue is the one that was president during 9/11/01
They should rethink the design and let the upper floors be empty structure with outdoor gardens, exhibits and viewpoints. I agree that it would be difficult to market now with the economic conditions but they could retain the highest building in the US status and forgo populating the top (the riskiest part) with people and businesses. I picture kind of like a building that starts out normal at the bottom but gradually "peels away" at the top revealing the steely resolve that is the American spirit. By leaving the building in a permanent state of "unfinished" it inspires hope that the future is still something that can be altered, and is still the stuff of dreams. That would be a much more attractive (and lucrative I would imagine) purpose than just another office tower with a forced moniker.
I disagree with you, this is New York, and we will not live our lives in fear. We are only as weak as our weakest link and that was Bush. Hopefully all his succesors will take their responsibilities more seriously before tragedy happens.
It was the NY Port Authority that decided to change the name.
Probably a good idea. I understand the emotional argument, but I wouldn't want to think of terrorism everytime I went to work.
Kind of silly to buid it in the first place, IMO. If the biggest building in all of New York was built in the 1920s, is there really any economic need for a tower that size? Seems like outdated machismo ego to me.
The WTC was built in the 1970s and Empire State Building in the early 1930s. Your opinion the need is just that. As far as I'm concerned the greatest city in the world should look the part.
Okay. The Empire State Building "is" the tallest in New York City. 20s or 30s, my point is the same.
The point is that the whole culture of strutting around the lockerroom to see who has the biggest skyscraper is a game for young adolescent economies. Let Dubai and China play those silly games to prove their worth. That's what America did when industrialism was centered here. Now it's not.
You don't see London or Paris or Berlin or any other mature economy playing those games. There's no need for it. Chicago certainly doesn't need the Sears Tower and New York probably doesn't need another WTC, economically speaking. Doesn't matter, though. 70 floors, 110. At a certain point it's all the same. It's a big building.
So you don't want the center of trade located in the country that is the center of it???The US is the center of trade and its trade center is located in NY. I don't see your point. I think that a tall building is not only more efficient, it's better environmentally than a 5 acre complex.
Okay. The Empire State Building "is" the tallest in New York City. 20s or 30s, my point is the same.
The point is that the whole culture of strutting around the lockerroom to see who has the biggest skyscraper is a game for young adolescent economies. Let Dubai and China play those silly games to prove their worth. That's what America did when industrialism was centered here. Now it's not.
You don't see London or Paris or Berlin or any other mature economy playing those games. There's no need for it. Chicago certainly doesn't need the Sears Tower and New York probably doesn't need another WTC, economically speaking. Doesn't matter, though. 70 floors, 110. At a certain point it's all the same. It's a big building.
Eh? Granted skyscrapers can be, and are, used as symbols of a nation's prosperity, but they are not exclusively juvenile exercises in aggrandizement.
If they are going to change the name I propose the title.
The BERNANKE BANK BAILOUT BUILDING.
It could come with a slogan mural in the lobby 'We're watching over Wall Street".
While symbolism of the tower is great, the truth is with a name like "The Freedom Tower" its just asking to be attacked again. How many businesses are going to want to invest in a building that is only there because the last buildings previously there were destroyed by acts of terrorism.
The WTC was built in the 1970s and Empire State Building in the early 1930s. Your opinion the need is just that. As far as I'm concerned the greatest city in the world should look the part.
This is a silly argument and the only reason I'm responding is because I don't seem to have made my point clear to you.
I know the WTC was built in the 1970s. I'm not saying to not build a new world trade center, I'm just saying that there doesn't appear to be market demand for such a tall tower based on development patterns across New York. It seems it's being built that tall out of ego and pride, with the hope of landing enough tenants (as they only signed their first last week), not out of a sober and rational necessity.
I'll try to explain it this way: In the 80 or so years since the Empire State building went up, only the WTC has risen higher. If you're judging the quality of a city on how tall its skyscrapers are (as you seem to be doing), then NYC isn't even in the game. NYC's tallest building comes in 14th behind 2 buildings in Chicago, 7 buildings in China, 2 in Milaysia, 1 in Taiwan, and the tallest in the world in the United Arab Emirates.
Aside from Chicago, the birthplace of skyscrapers and a city whose pride has poked massive antennae to the heavens to keep strutting around that locker room, the rest are in young, developing nations whose quality of life couldn't begin to compare to New York's or any of the European epicenters of trade. New York is far too mature and sophisticated of a city to play that silly height game if there isn't market demand for it. That's just my opinion. If there is market demand for it, then send them up 108 floors.
Btw - is there some legal code that requires New Yorkers to utter "the greatest city in the world" everytime they say its name. Reminds me of Muslims who say "may peace be upon him" everytime they utter Muhammed's name. Come to think of it, the insistence on claiming the "one, true great city" echoes a little fundamentalism itself... Don't read into that. Just can't sleep.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't read into that. Just can't sleep.
