PDA

View Full Version : Freedom Tower



tgunner
June 28th, 2006, 02:24 PM
Freedom tower was supposed to be an amazing tribute to those lost during the 9/11 attacks. It was supposed to be awe-inspiring, and on top of all of that, be the world's tallest building at 1,776 feet. Instead, it has been redesigned to be easier to build, but lost most of it's aesthetic appeal, and still caries it's 2010 completion date. Now today, I read about the Burj Dubai tower. It is being built in the United Arab Emirates, with a completion date of 2008, and a height of at least 700 meters, or 2,300 feet. Not only is it considerably taller, it's going to be completed quicker! This will make Freedom Tower look like another skyscraper, although the tallest in the U.S. Pictures and sources:

Old Freedom Tower design:
http://www.angusmeek.co.uk/wtc/img/wtc_freedomtower.jpg

New design:
http://i.today.reuters.com/misc/genImage.aspx?uri=2006-06-28T153255Z_01_BAU845676_RTRUKOP_2_PICTURE2.jpg&resize=full

The Burj Dubai:
http://realestate.theemiratesnetwork.com/developments/dubai/images/burj_dubai.jpg


-------- Sources: --------------------------------------------------------

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-06-28T153450Z_01_BAU845676_RTRUKOC_0_US-PROPERTY-WTC.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2

http://realestate.theemiratesnetwork.com/developments/dubai/burj_dubai.php

carlsson
June 28th, 2006, 03:04 PM
Why do you (always) have to be the biggest and best? I'm afraid making a such statement would only attract even more US hate from the rest of the world. I suppose the reason why you build a skyscraper is to have some kind of business, residential or other use for it, not to point into the air and say "look, we're back in business". A house that is several hundred of meters tall can only be admired for its aestethic appeal at long distance (flight picture) or only a small part of it at close distance.

My $0.02.

Terry Yager
June 28th, 2006, 03:44 PM
If it were my call, I'd say, Plow the whole lot under, and build a memorial playground for children. The site will never be the same, and I think a memorial is more appropriate than another skyscraper (business as usual?).

--T

alexkerhead
June 28th, 2006, 04:04 PM
First, Dubai is going to bankrupt themselves with all their stupid projects, like the palm islands and such, that building is a terrible idea.
Second, I agree with Terry, nobody will ever be happy working in a builing built over a building where so many people lost their lives for no reason.
I have to agree with carlsson as well, it will only instill more dislike of the US citizens.
The money for that project could be directed to more reasonible stuff, like finding a way to keep missiles from entering the US. Or, finding better ways to blow comets and asteroids out of the sky before they hit earth.
Or even finding a way to build a deep space radio wave transmitter. Anything is better than building something just to be cool looking.
Dubai's ruler is stupid, and that is a suger coated term I have for him.

tgunner
June 28th, 2006, 08:35 PM
I'm not saying that Dubai is better, it's just that on top of the fact that Freedom Tower was redesigned, and in my opinion looks worse than before. This building is a showing of conquering over hard times, and is a living memorial, better than any plaque can be. Mind you there will also be a park type area, with dedicated memorials in honor of the towers. I'm not speaking entirely patriotically, but also from an architectural point of view. I have always had a fascination with design, and am quite inspired by the magnificent buildings and structures in Dubai, and feel that the redesigned Freedom Tower is lacking in comparison.

alexkerhead
June 28th, 2006, 09:15 PM
Yeah, if they have to build something great, they should make it compare to the best.

Chris2005
July 8th, 2006, 12:31 PM
"I have to agree with carlsson as well, it will only instill more dislike of the US citizens."

Who gives a flying rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks. There's certainly Americans that I can't stand personally, but some people hate us just because of who we are, what we are, and WHY we are. They can just cram it all I say! If the rest of the world would stop being such wining babies and denounce their socialism (which is the cause for a continual 10% unemployment rate in Europe), they might just join us in greatness. I'd like to see each and every just country on the face of the earth prosper and maintain their sovereignty. But I hear so much about how people resent us these days, even from "allies", that I really don't want to hear it anymore. They can all just ph**k off LOL LOL.

CP/M User
July 8th, 2006, 02:13 PM
Personally I dislike any sort of Skyscraper - particularly
when they have to be bigger - though since I've worked in a
couple - I must say it's not nice at all (well perhaps limited
to the buildings I worked in) - they attract some kinda of
wind, couldn't open the windows - worst heating/cooling
systems ever which attract diseases (must of been set to
Northern Hemisphere settings - Cold in Winter & Hot in
Summer).

Personally I would not have put another Scraper at the ground
zero site in NY - why not a park or a bush or something
inconsistant with the city?

CP/M User.

Terry Yager
July 8th, 2006, 02:34 PM
Yes, if it has to be da 'World's Greatest' why not da World's Greatest Playground?

--T

Unknown_K
July 8th, 2006, 08:40 PM
Those towers were full of people and busineses generating jobs and income, the value of the land itself dictates something should be built on the site (not a playground in the middle of commuter hell). I think when foreighners come to your country and knock down a landmark you need to rebuild it bigger and better. I do have issues naming anything with "freedom" in the name, I don't see the US as having freedom to begin with (except the freedom to chose 153 varieties of cereal but no freedom to pick a president that big business does not own since birth).

carlsson
July 9th, 2006, 07:29 AM
Do foreigners often come into the US and knock down your landmarks? It sounds like regular business.

Terry Yager
July 9th, 2006, 08:31 AM
So build a bigger, better landmark somewhere else nearby. I just think that the kill-zone should remain as sacred as any other burial ground (mebbe it's just my Native American religious leanings). Doing any kinda business on the site just seems irreverant to me.

--T

Unknown_K
July 9th, 2006, 10:07 PM
I think they carted off all the rubble from the site, so its not realy a burial ground. If people in europe quit building on the places where people died in wars they would have nowhere to build.

Some type of memorial should be on the grounds of the new structure, but that is about it.

CP/M User
July 10th, 2006, 01:42 AM
Terry Yager wrote:

> So build a bigger, better landmark somewhere else
> nearby. I just think that the kill-zone should remain
> as sacred as any other burial ground (mebbe it's just
> my Native American religious leanings). Doing any
> kinda business on the site just seems irreverant to
> me.

Yeah well, I reckon that's a good way of looking at it.
Australia is full of sacred cultural sites, sure it's all ol'
Aboriginal History - though it's still relevant since they ask
for the same & understandibly don't want people to interfere.

To replace one horrible incident with another waiting to
happen is such a cold reminder. Can't they simply build an
underground city? Metropolis maybe 80 years old, but geez it's
looking to become more & more relevant!

CP/M User.

carlsson
July 10th, 2006, 05:16 AM
To make myself clear; I have no objection about building another skyscraper where the two old ones were. It is only the viewpoint that it has to be bigger than everything else, be built prior to other projects are finished and be named in a way that oozes superiority that ticked me off.

Terry Yager
July 10th, 2006, 09:09 AM
I guess 'burial ground' may not be the right word to describe it.
It's just the idea of doing 'business as usual' there that bugs me. I think it's demeaning to all the souls lost there. I mean, it would be the equivalent to building a 'Cowboys & Indians' theme park on the site of the Little Big Horn battle, or a SuperMall at Gettysburg, IMO.

--T

Unknown_K
July 10th, 2006, 02:18 PM
The only people who go to Ghettysburg seem to be foreigners or school kids on a bus trip (I have been there).

CP/M User
July 11th, 2006, 11:13 PM
Terry Yager wrote:

> I guess 'burial ground' may not be the right word to
> describe it.
> It's just the idea of doing 'business as usual' there
> that bugs me. I think it's demeaning to all the souls
> lost there. I mean, it would be the equivalent to
> building a 'Cowboys & Indians' theme park on the site
> of the Little Big Horn battle, or a SuperMall at
> Gettysburg, IMO.

Guess it's an interesting viewpoint you raise there since our
very own Port Arthur has got a very dark history itself, yet
it still continues to be a tourist destination. The Port
Arthur massacure some 10 years ago - 35 people killed - it had
a bad impact, the cafe where the incident occured was sealed
off & I believe removed, but the actural Prison colony wasn't.
I was there myself in 1994 & it was a prison which already had
a very dark history. I mean prisoner's were mutlated when that
place was in operation - people think that some eerie stuff
occurs there (though I must admit I found nothing scarey about
the place - except the tour guide).

Still people would have cried a huge protest when the place
closed down - if someone wanted to make it a popular tourist
destination.

CP/M User.

dongfeng
July 12th, 2006, 12:38 AM
I find it unbelievable that they are actually building another "worlds tallest" skyscraper on that site. I am sure that last thing the people who died in the 911 tragedy would have wanted was another terrorist target.

In my opinion what they should do is to put aside an area to make a park of remembrance, and develop the rest into a regular-sized development to blend in with the rest of the city.

carlsson
July 12th, 2006, 06:27 AM
Frankly, I don't know if skyscrapers per se are more typical terrorist targets than anything else.

tgunner
July 12th, 2006, 09:06 AM
I would imgine that Freedom Tower will be much better guarded, and watched over.

dpatten
July 12th, 2006, 10:56 AM
I guess 'burial ground' may not be the right word to describe it.
It's just the idea of doing 'business as usual' there that bugs me. I think it's demeaning to all the souls lost there. I mean, it would be the equivalent to building a 'Cowboys & Indians' theme park on the site of the Little Big Horn battle, or a SuperMall at Gettysburg, IMO.

--T

There's a McDonalds within rock throwing distance of where Pickett's charge was in Gettysburg.

As for whether or not it makes foreigners hate Americans, I couldn't care less. Who cares if they get another irrational reason to hate me?

Unknown_K
July 12th, 2006, 12:16 PM
I find it unbelievable that they are actually building another "worlds tallest" skyscraper on that site. I am sure that last thing the people who died in the 911 tragedy would have wanted was another terrorist target.

In my opinion what they should do is to put aside an area to make a park of remembrance, and develop the rest into a regular-sized development to blend in with the rest of the city.

Who knows, maybe the people who died in the towers would have wanted things to go back to business as usual. A terrorist target is any building or place that means something to the people they hate, and to the government that those people support. You think a small park built on the twin towers site full of kids would not be a target of some lowlife with a bomb under his coat? If you want to get rid of terrorist then submit to everything they want (and that list will forever grow) while at the same time destroying everything you care about and your forefathers died to build.

80sFreak
July 12th, 2006, 12:55 PM
If you want to get rid of terrorist then submit to everything they want (and that list will forever grow) while at the same time destroying everything you care about and your forefathers died to build.

I don't think the current administration is submitting to the wants of terrorists, I think they are doing a pretty good job destroying things I care about and the forefathers built - like having secret prisons around the world or prisons where the inmates don't have any rights. Or taking away your privacy in the name of security.

Cheers,

80sFreak

P.S. Yes I understand the inmates at those prisons are very bad people but in a civilized society they must be accorded basic human rights!

CP/M User
July 12th, 2006, 04:53 PM
dpatten wrote:

> There's a McDonalds within rock throwing distance of
> where Pickett's charge was in Gettysburg.

There's pretty well much a McDonalds within rock throwing
distance which ever way you go! ;-)

CP/M User.

Unknown_K
July 12th, 2006, 06:48 PM
I don't think the current administration is submitting to the wants of terrorists, I think they are doing a pretty good job destroying things I care about and the forefathers built - like having secret prisons around the world or prisons where the inmates don't have any rights. Or taking away your privacy in the name of security.

Cheers,

80sFreak

P.S. Yes I understand the inmates at those prisons are very bad people but in a civilized society they must be accorded basic human rights!

The government is not building that tower is it? I think the guy who owned the twin towers and the property is building it with insurance money.

Personally I think the current administration sucks, but what can you do (I voted for another party).

Our constitution is for the citizens in this country and for the people legally living here, its not meant to encompass the whole world or people here illegally. The federal government has been ignoring the constitution for a few decades now anyway, overstepping their bounds with respect to states rights and the power the president is suposed to have and not have.

Terry Yager
July 12th, 2006, 07:21 PM
Even prisoners are entitled to basic human rights, no matter where they came from, or how they got here. Moving the prison off-shores, or defiining the prisoners as enemy combatants doesn't change that.

--T