It’s easy to forget, the WTC was a pair of ugly eyesores: faceless modernist architecture completely out of scale with its environment. The view wasn’t really that good since you were so far above the surrounding buildings. They were fairly well mocked and not much loved.
Are you kidding, those eyesore gave the landscape incredible depth. The view of the downtown skyline was breathtaking with those two behemoths towering over everything else.
The only thing that made them remarkable was the fact that there were two of them. Still, an integral part of the skyline that I used to see every day standing at the stern of the Staten Island ferry on my way home.
It was a beautiful structure. Every time I was in the city, the best part of the trip. I love the simplicity. I wish NYC would rebuild them, just as they looked before (albeit with some structural updates and countermeasures). They were perfect for that place.
They definitely weren’t ugly at night with all the lights shining from inside, and they definitely weren’t ugly in the morning/evening with the sun either shining directly on them and reflecting in the river, or positioned right between. They were “home” to me and I still look for them every day.
The World Trade Center towers might have looked at home in Brasilia, the capital of Brazil designed entirely in a stripped-down modernist style, but in eclectic Manhattan, they were mind-numbingly dull compared to old standouts like the Chrysler, Empire State or Woolworth buildings. They had no ornamentation, masonry, taper, or play of color and shadow, just two scaleless, top-heavy metallic boxes built by the Port Authority to help reverse the exodus of corporations to the suburbs . In effect, they were huge architectural decoys. If state agencies hadn’t moved in upon completion, the otherwise empty towers seemed destined to become the world’s largest minimal art sculpture — and what a thrilling moment in art history that was.
call me ignorant and tell me i know nothing about architecture, but i really liked seeing them up until i was 14 years old, and i still love to see pictures.
so maybe the most impressive thing about these two pretty damn buildings was that there were two, but that’s enough for me, and i think that was enough for most new yorkers, too. after all, the metlife building was the one we voted (before or soon after i was born, i think) we would “most like to see torn down.”
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Oh, that’s really bad.
I actually visited there in 1984, it was pretty boring, actually- except for the giant elevator.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
It’s easy to forget, the WTC was a pair of ugly eyesores: faceless modernist architecture completely out of scale with its environment. The view wasn’t really that good since you were so far above the surrounding buildings. They were fairly well mocked and not much loved.
But we do wish they were still here.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
The Best view from or on top of the World Trade Center is in the Movie Home Alone 2
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
cant understand why the view could have been bad …
not from the top at least …
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Are you kidding, those eyesore gave the landscape incredible depth. The view of the downtown skyline was breathtaking with those two behemoths towering over everything else.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Well, they got a little closer didn’t they?
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
pete, you mean the towers? :P
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 am
The only thing that made them remarkable was the fact that there were two of them. Still, an integral part of the skyline that I used to see every day standing at the stern of the Staten Island ferry on my way home.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:14 am
It was a beautiful structure. Every time I was in the city, the best part of the trip. I love the simplicity. I wish NYC would rebuild them, just as they looked before (albeit with some structural updates and countermeasures). They were perfect for that place.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 am
Sorry, it’s a shame they got knocked down, but a majority of New Yorkers believed them to be eyesores.
WTC, you were dog ugly but we still loved you.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:32 am
They definitely weren’t ugly at night with all the lights shining from inside, and they definitely weren’t ugly in the morning/evening with the sun either shining directly on them and reflecting in the river, or positioned right between. They were “home” to me and I still look for them every day.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:32 am
The World Trade Center towers might have looked at home in Brasilia, the capital of Brazil designed entirely in a stripped-down modernist style, but in eclectic Manhattan, they were mind-numbingly dull compared to old standouts like the Chrysler, Empire State or Woolworth buildings. They had no ornamentation, masonry, taper, or play of color and shadow, just two scaleless, top-heavy metallic boxes built by the Port Authority to help reverse the exodus of corporations to the suburbs . In effect, they were huge architectural decoys. If state agencies hadn’t moved in upon completion, the otherwise empty towers seemed destined to become the world’s largest minimal art sculpture — and what a thrilling moment in art history that was.
September 14th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
call me ignorant and tell me i know nothing about architecture, but i really liked seeing them up until i was 14 years old, and i still love to see pictures.
so maybe the most impressive thing about these two pretty damn buildings was that there were two, but that’s enough for me, and i think that was enough for most new yorkers, too. after all, the metlife building was the one we voted (before or soon after i was born, i think) we would “most like to see torn down.”