 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
After much discussion I finally decided that this hot topic, regarding the reconstruction of the World Trade Center, deserves its own page.
On this page, I will devote the entire page to discussion about the World Trade Center.
The AutoJC site has decided to lean on a real hot issue here!
Why? Because it's this same thinking, this pragmatic thinking, withought principle, without guidelines, without any planning, that is ruining this country.
It is for this reason that I am leaving my previous treatise regarding the Government and its failure to act in a rational manner regarding acts of war and terrorism, that you see below.
Among this country's blatant hints of terrorist threats:
And we are wasting our time investigating warnings whose credibility is questionable in the first place?
We need to deal with terrorists and the countries that underwrite them with forceful resolve. Not with appeasement.
Once a terrorist attack happens (and look above to see how often it has happened), we need to deal with it in such a way that we hold firm as a country with principles.
Why did this happen? How is it that a 757, not much bigger than the 707 that the WTC towers' engineers claimed to be engineered to withstand a crash from, was able to bring down this building in 45 minutes?
On several message boards, I attempted to give my expert opinion as to what I thought of this. So I have taken the time to print excerpts of my responses from such boards:
9/13/01- It is a know fact that these high rise structures used spray-on asbestos fireproofing for the columns, which can't be relied upon to provide the necessary resistance even to a conventional fire due to the lack of control of the application.
Now I do agree that the heat of the inferno probably was higher than that used in UL tests.
Yet I thought that this building type demanded a three-hour fire protection rating. If that is so, then the buildings should not have failed so quickly. Had the fireproofing system performed even 50% of its claim then I think the buildings still would have collapsed but not as quickly.
Another troubling thing about all skyscrapers such as the WTC is that, in case of a broad fire, not even nearly as catastrophic as Sept. 11th, the only route for escape would be the stairs. And the only way to escape is down. Not to the rooftop! Not to the elevators. If one is disabled how does one escape?
I figured if I ran like hell down 110 flights of stairs, and I am a runner, I'd get "hella tired" half-way down, and it would take me about 20 to 25 minutes to escape.
The quick collapse of the World Trade Centers towers will forever be unsettling to me as a design professional.
9/17/01-(a Q & A):
"Was there anyway that these building could have been built to withstand this attack?"
I remember reading that the WTC towers could withstand an impact from a Boeing 707. On another forum I proved that theory didn't make sense as the 767 isn't much bigger and carried only slightly more fuel.
Also, the WTC used spray-on asbestos fireproofing to fireproof the columns. Spray-on fireproofing doesn't protect worth shit when an intense fire burns- as could even happen when a gas line ruptures and an explosion takes place, let alone a plane crash. Fact of the matter is, I knew about the spray-on fireproofing all along. I was the project designer for the Yamaichi Securities interior offices project back in the fledgling years of my career and I was in the vacant space taking measurements.
I'm sorry but I'm preoccupied with this very unsettling thought- I think that the WTC towers failed awfully fast.
"Should every building be built like an embassy or a bunker?"
NO but they should be able to withstand horizontal forces. Face it, no building can be designed to withstand an airliner crashing into it without damage. The codes actually were changed and toughened several times since the WTC towers were completed. I doubt one could construct the current design of the WTC tody and even be in remote compliance with the present codes.
"Should the towers be rebuilt in lower Manhattan in defiance?"
Not so much in defiance but in acknowledgement of the fact that we as a nation and as a society have the resolve to move on and remain strong despite such calamitous circumstances. That we have the fortitude to rebuild and run our great nation.
"All buildings are fire resistent for only a limited time (2hr, 3hr, 5hr, 6hr rating...) what happens beyond the limit? Death?"
I am of the opinion that the WTC fireproofing failed to protect in even a fraction of the time claimed by its manufacturer.
IN general, fire resistance is such that, during a fire, the survivors are given adequate time to escape using the facilites designed for such a purpose. Now these are able-bodied persons who are reasonably fit. Beyond the limits such people are presumed to have been able to escape. Smoke isolation and "smokeproof towers" are supposed to enable those who can escape to do so without danger of smoke inhalation. Beyond the limit either the fire fighters will have controlled the fires or the structure will have failed10/2/01: "As I responded before, perhaps even on the Architosh board as well, I have been always concerned about the safety of skyscrapers as a whole.
In case of fire or dire emergency, would you really want to walk down 110 flights of stairs?
I'm with you and Frank Lloyd Wright regarding skyscrapers."
Back in 1973, as a graduate and architect in training, I had the privilege of working on a tenant space in the 44th floor of the World trade Center. I saw the plans and familiarized myself with the design and the technology that was utilized to construct these towers. There was a clear span between exterior columns and interior core columns that allowed space planners to design spaces without columns getting in the way. There was a space frame floor structure that was light and strong that allowed utilities to run through the floor while allowing a minimal floor-to-floor depth. All of this was done utilizing the greatest construction technologies available at the time.
We cannot, and should not, design structures such that they can withstand direct hits from nuclear weapons or large commercial jetliners which are hijacked and deliberately crashed into them. Indeed, the most fitting memorial to the World Trade Center ......would be to rebuild the World Trade Center in its entirety, in its initial aesthetic (upgraded to current Codes), with a significant memorial to those lives lost. The 3,000 heroes.
Therefore, as a nation, our government should be vigilant of such threats of terrorism and should be in a position to act upon such acts with whatever force is necessary to bring the terrorists and their sponsoring nations to the point of unconditional surrender. The more we as a nation respond to such obvious evils, the more we can count upon worldwide respect.
So here's a site that thinks it knows the answer and would like to let you know how full of crap we architects and engineers are.
The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism site purports, with its scant hearsay and misinterpretation of photographic evidence, to let you know that the whole thing was a fraud, a media "wag the dog" scenario, a series of events that could not have happened the way the media described them.
An excerpt says, "- The building stays up. A reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong. Terrorists set off a large bomb *inside* that building without significant damage. ... The WTC towers were specifically designed to survive a direct impact from a jumbo jet - which *both do*. ...
Off the bat he's wrong. The WTC Towers are steel construction. Concrete was used for the foundations and floor slabs. It was an innovative engineering design that uses an exterior structural shell and an interior structural core. All of lightweight, high-strength tensile steel. Further, there is no evidence to support the argument that the WTC towers can survive the impact of a jumbo jet- or even a 707. Did the contractor have to perform a test on the WTC towers which consisted of crashing a 707 into the upper floors of the WTC tower as a prerequisite of obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy? Of course not!
More nonsense:
"The Twin Towers were giving off a lot of black sooty smoke, but there was little fire visible. But to melt steel you need the high temperature produced by, e.g., an oxy-acetylene torch. Jet fuel burning in air (especially in an enclosed space within a building, where there is much smoke and little available oxygen) just won't do it. And if the steel columns had melted, would this have produced the implosive collapse observed?
Where there's smoke there's fire. There were over 30,000 gallons of jet fuel burning at extremely high hemperatures that was explosive. Also, the building has gas piping in it that no doubt severed, contributing to the inferno. The collapse was hardly implosive, as this lout proclaims. It was quite widespread, and left tons of twisted steel and wreckage that caused the collapse of several other buildings over a block away. This jerk should have visited Ground Zero at some point.
Alternatively, he could always visit this site of Butch Huntley's excellent "Ground Zero" photos.
It's Derric Turner's vision that is currently making the rounds on the Internet, complete with New Age sound track and the Verdi "La Traviata" overture.
The concept presented on the Flash presentation consists of five cylindrical towers rising to a height of 1449 feet, with a 12 story pyramid atop these cylindrical towers. Why, the building even contains a biosphere! Within the inner cyliner are a total of 50 elevators, one for each state, they are linked every ten floors by transit centers. More on this solution may be found on that website. Each of the towers has a 200 ft. diameter.
It certainly is a bold vision Mr. Turner has. The structure has interesting elements and a well-thought-out plan regarding safety and alert warnings.
My biggest reservation relates to the cylindrical forms. Much of the world relates to rectangular spaces. Some architects argue that the circle is a more efficient use of space than the square or the rectangle. Yet perpendiculars to a circle will always converge at some point, the proximity around such point is useless space. Unless one uses angular walls in a rectangle, this doen't happen.
Also, the cylindrical forms have an obvious contrast to the rectangular forms in its proximity, and will result in a sharp contrast of building vernaculars in the skyline.
For those of us who perceive objects as a whole, the final form strongly resembles the Space Shuttle Booster Rocket.
In a built-in poll, it suggests that 83% of the tally favors this concept.
I applaud Turner's bold vision of what the WTC could look like with all its innovations. Yet I yearn for alternative solutions that consider, rather than contrast with, the realities of occupying and using a structure such as Turner's.
Presenting the six solutions to the WTC reconstruction, officially endorsed and approved by the collectivists who run the WTC program.
You know them as the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.
The six proposals all responded to a program that mandated a memorial be constructed in an open space environment, and that the millions of square feet of business space all be secondary to such monument. Well, OK,maybe that's NOT how the program read, but that's how it all shook out. Hence my rather terse posting on a popular discussion forum:
"I wrote a letter tho the Lower manhattan Development Corporation regarding my views, and I've decided to post it here for your information:
"As an architect and a planner for 25 years, and as a former frequent visitor to the World Trade Center site, I feel very strongly negative regarding all of the six proposals presented.
First of all, to emphasize that each of these complexes should be "memorials" is to equate these diminutive buildings to mausoleum status- the wrong attitude to take regarding rebuilding what was once the greatest world trade center on the planet.
Many Regard New York as the major business capitol of the world, as well as this country. The diminutive scale of the buildings does not so much relate to a human scale as it seems to surrender to the fear that the terrorists have foisted upon us. Should the World Trade Center be built according to any of these proposals, then we will surrender to the rest of the world what was once to best center for world commerce to others.
I am appalled that none of the proposals address the vitality of the previous complex, with its indoor shopping malls, its transportation hub, its restaurants viewing the world from a great vantage point, and its businessman-friendly environment,with its on-site hotels and conference centers. Also, none of the proposals even attempts to relate directly to the World Financial Center across the West Side Highway, further isolating the future complex and relegating it to the mausoleum status it does not deserve.
When you collectively write a program for the planning and design for the new complex, the program should contain a preamble stating that the complex, in its design, planning and relationship to the world's greatest city, should be of such stature that it is second to none. These can be no more fitting a memorial to those who died there on September 11th than to replace the World Trade Center with one which is better, more exuberant, more invigorating, than before. None of the proposals submitted meet that very important criteria, thus they should all be rejected."
And, so now, since the above solutions are no good, we have the latest, which is to invite world-class architects to submit proposals.
It's about time.
Here's a link to the Nine Finalists in this competition.
Note that the THINK team had THREE FINALISTS in the solution.
Note also that the design by the SOM team was withdrawn from consideration.
From these nine designs two finalists were chosen.
From the two finalists, a winner was chosen........
And the Winner is.......
"Memory Foundations by Studio Daniel Libeskind leaves portions of the slurry wall exposed as a symbol of the strength and endurance of American democracy, while reserving a majestic setting for the memorial and museum in the area known as the bathtub. A 1,776' tall spire creates a powerful new skyline for Lower Manhattan, while the bustling activity below reaffirms life in the aftermath of tragedy ,", according to LMDC.
Changes in the Libeskind design include the replacement of a ridiculous garden in the tower with a more useful, and potentially exciting, restaurant.
Stay tuned while the bureaucrats hack away at this very visionary design, reducing it to bureaucratic incompetence. Hopefully, Libeskind read The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, and thus has a clue as to what to do in case of such debacle. Just kidding, of course.