4 ms·

This is a long rambling article without any clear point, except that the author doesn't personally care for the tower as much as he might have (if he designed i

This is a long rambling article without any clear point, except that the author doesn't personally care for the tower as much as he might have (if he designed it?). I was deeply skeptical of the "Freedom Tower" (everyone I know in NYC still refers to it by this ridiculous name) design before it was built, but as the thing has been built, it's actually grown on me. The inclined side panels look almost like two towers when the light hits them, reminiscent of the old towers, which I still miss as part of the skyline. It's not my favorite building in the New York skyline – that would be the Chrysler Building – but it's not bad.

uptown 12y ago
"everyone I know in NYC still refers to it by this ridiculous name" Funny - Everyone I know in NYC refers to it as the World Trade Center.
- StefanKarpinski 12y ago
  I guess that works but the term seems overly broad – WTC 3-7 are also part of the "World Trade Center". So what do you call that building specifically? WTC 1, I guess?
  - Brian-Puccio 12y ago
    Kinda like when people say they're going to "the city", they mean Manhattan. If you're going to Brooklyn, yes, that's part of New York City, but then you say you're going to Brooklyn, you don't say you're going to "the city".
  - mfringel 12y ago
    Typically, I've heard "World Trade" when referring to 1 WTC, and "One World Trade" when needing to disambiguate.
  - NathanKP 12y ago
    I usually hear people here in NYC refer to it as "One World Trade Center" which at the same time covers its building number in the complex, and the fact that it is a single tower as opposed to two.
- evanb 12y ago
  I was just about to say this. In the last few years the only people I've heard call it the Freedom Tower are people who are NOT from NYC.
- look_lookatme 12y ago
  I mostly call it The World Trade Center, but sometimes I use Freedom Tower in a sort of pejorative way.
- murbard2 12y ago
  I've been in NYC for about 10 years and I've lived in the financial district for about 7: I hear both pretty regularly.
krschultz 12y ago
It's not so bad as part of the skyline, but it is horrible from street level. I'm not sure there is much you can do when building a blast resistant base, but man it feels like a bunker. No stores. No windows. Few entrances. It makes that entire block dead.
- StefanKarpinski 12y ago
  That's a good point. I've spent almost no time near the building base. Maybe that was what Kimmelman was getting at? His writing is so roundabout that it's not really clear what exactly he's complaining about.
  - wlesieutre 12y ago
    It's a bit buried in the article, but I think that's one of his main points: >Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young generation of New Yorkers wanted. America has something of an obsession with single-use areas. Everyone lives in one zone. Commerce goes on in a different zone. Industry somewhere else. It's a big contributing factor in why a lot of places have ended up as dangerous wastelands at night; no one lives there, no one shops there, no shopkeepers keeping an eye on the street, no one out walking the dog or going out for coffee. So when a new landmark building goes up on a piece of valuable real estate in Manhattan, it's a bit disappointing that the conversation ended up along the lines of "You know what'd be nice here?" "What, a coffee shop and a neighborhood grocery store?" "Nah, a giant bunker." Not to say it's the worst thing ever, but we could have done so much better.
    - lpsz 12y ago
      And it's a shame, especially because Manhattan is likely one of the few U.S. localities with sufficient population density to make mixed-use areas thrive. When I spend time in Asia, I find it remarkable how well cities like Tokyo [1] and Taipei function. [1] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.tw/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.tw/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

uptown 12y ago

"everyone I know in NYC still refers to it by this ridiculous name" Funny - Everyone I know in NYC refers to it as the World Trade Center.

StefanKarpinski 12y ago
I guess that works but the term seems overly broad – WTC 3-7 are also part of the "World Trade Center". So what do you call that building specifically? WTC 1, I guess?
- Brian-Puccio 12y ago
  Kinda like when people say they're going to "the city", they mean Manhattan. If you're going to Brooklyn, yes, that's part of New York City, but then you say you're going to Brooklyn, you don't say you're going to "the city".
- mfringel 12y ago
  Typically, I've heard "World Trade" when referring to 1 WTC, and "One World Trade" when needing to disambiguate.
- NathanKP 12y ago
  I usually hear people here in NYC refer to it as "One World Trade Center" which at the same time covers its building number in the complex, and the fact that it is a single tower as opposed to two.
evanb 12y ago
I was just about to say this. In the last few years the only people I've heard call it the Freedom Tower are people who are NOT from NYC.
look_lookatme 12y ago
I mostly call it The World Trade Center, but sometimes I use Freedom Tower in a sort of pejorative way.
murbard2 12y ago
I've been in NYC for about 10 years and I've lived in the financial district for about 7: I hear both pretty regularly.

krschultz 12y ago

It's not so bad as part of the skyline, but it is horrible from street level. I'm not sure there is much you can do when building a blast resistant base, but man it feels like a bunker. No stores. No windows. Few entrances. It makes that entire block dead.

StefanKarpinski 12y ago
That's a good point. I've spent almost no time near the building base. Maybe that was what Kimmelman was getting at? His writing is so roundabout that it's not really clear what exactly he's complaining about.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  It's a bit buried in the article, but I think that's one of his main points: >Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young generation of New Yorkers wanted. America has something of an obsession with single-use areas. Everyone lives in one zone. Commerce goes on in a different zone. Industry somewhere else. It's a big contributing factor in why a lot of places have ended up as dangerous wastelands at night; no one lives there, no one shops there, no shopkeepers keeping an eye on the street, no one out walking the dog or going out for coffee. So when a new landmark building goes up on a piece of valuable real estate in Manhattan, it's a bit disappointing that the conversation ended up along the lines of "You know what'd be nice here?" "What, a coffee shop and a neighborhood grocery store?" "Nah, a giant bunker." Not to say it's the worst thing ever, but we could have done so much better.
  - lpsz 12y ago
    And it's a shame, especially because Manhattan is likely one of the few U.S. localities with sufficient population density to make mixed-use areas thrive. When I spend time in Asia, I find it remarkable how well cities like Tokyo [1] and Taipei function. [1] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.tw/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.tw/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html