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.
They sure did stuff MUCH BETTER back then...... Yes it was more time consuming,BUT THE QUALITY WAS SO MUCH BETTER!!
Have you seen the very recent award-winning documentary The Rising: Rebuilding Ground Zero? It's the best documentary I've seen in years. But parts 1 and 2 of the planning and erection of Tower One and the engineering strategy that has gone into building the most state-of-the-art skyscraper in the world is flat-out astonishing. They offer great detail surrounding why the Twin Towers structure were flawed by today's standards. Several of the individuals featured in The Rising were part of building the original World Trade center; it's enlightening to hear their points of view.
They sure did stuff MUCH BETTER back then...... Yes it was more time consuming,BUT THE QUALITY WAS SO MUCH BETTER!!
...was because of its failure to maintain structural integrity. Things like budget cost overruns caused "less-is-more" mind think when applying proper measures of fire retardant agents to beams, floors, etc. There's no way a building should collapse in the period of time the Towers went down. Sorry, you are so wrong on this issue.
I happened to be studying architecture in NYC at the time these were being constructed. There was a lot of discussion on how they were totally inappropriate to the setting and destroyed the cohesiveness of the skyline. These comments were coming from some astute professors, so don't blame the messenger here. IMO, the connotation that has since been placed upon them is much more important than the actual buildings. A lot of us found them ugly and too big and permanent an example of a transitional form (whereas Penn Station was a peak example of a style that was wantonly destroyed by the city).
I happened to be studying architecture in NYC at the time these were being constructed. There was a lot of discussion on how they were totally inappropriate to the setting and destroyed the cohesiveness of the skyline. These comments were coming from some astute professors, so don't blame the messenger here. IMO, the connotation that has since been placed upon them is much more important than the actual buildings. A lot of us found them ugly and too big and permanent an example of a transitional form (whereas Penn Station was a peak example of a style that was wantonly destroyed by the city).
You beat me to this comment! Many New Yorkers didn't care for the look of those buildings. Of course, since they came down in a terrorist attack, it's extremely politically incorrect to say so.
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.
Building the World Trade Center and Twin Towers - 1 of 2
Building the World Trade Center and Twin Towers - 2 of 2
One of the reasons why the Towers collapses on 9/11...
