Design 
  Community 
  Architecture 
  Discussion 
 

Message - Thoughts on Why Many Don't Want the Status Quo Ante

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    
   

Posted by  d on February 20, 2003 at 19:06:54:

Occasionally on this forum there have been discussions of whether, and why, the former Twin Towers should not be rebuilt, as happens often with
destroyed or ageing structures around the world.

The consensus seems to be that the towers were either, on the one hand, simply not architecturally excellent or distinctive enough, and on the other, that what they may have represented (unchecked capitalism) was flawed and so a new model is needed.

But I believe that to some degree the lack of affection for those towers reflects the murky question of why they looked the way they did.

At one level, they appeared rather inhuman, without ornamentation or visual relief. From a distance one had little idea of
their scale because there were no windows or conventional markings to show a human-sized reference. The lack of humanity in esthetic terms, therefore , meant that the purported "inhumanity" of Wall Street was not balanced by or camouflaged in the detailing of the emblematic buildings themselves.

Of course we know that this derived, essentially , from the construction method, which required exterior columns so closely spaced
that the buildings very much resembled extruded or cast metal ojects,
with a finish resembling variously "chased", "grooved" or "finned"
machine parts.

But it is this last aspect which I think might be looked into more closely; why did the architect want to give his work this finish, as opposed to some other decorative treatment?

I submit that, standing as they did at the naive dawn of the computer age, the buildings were intended to imply the dawning power of the computing machine; they were intended to appear symbolically as monolithic "mainframes" using (as all computers did in that time) extraordinary amounts of electric power and- and this is the real point- generating enormous quantities of heat energy, energy that must be dissipated just as from an aluminum engine- by a vast series of closely spaced "aluminum" ribs or fins.

They were meant, perhaps, to imply the Great Brain, ceaselessly thinking through the night, sorting and collating and "clearing" the
infinite numerical ocean of data flowing through the new World Economy.

But this symbolism, which must have seemed precisely fitting to the
world of IBM, ca. 1975, naturally fails as microcircuits shrink through
the following decades; the same computing power is accomplished with a
tiny fraction of that energy, and gives off correspondingly less heat.

So this may clarify why many people feel litle need to replace the towers as they were: in both industrial and political terms, their
esthetic dressing (though not, perhaps, the simplicity of the basic design) was for an age which has passed by.

 
 
ArchitectureWeek     Search     Buildings     Architects     Types     Places     Pix     Free 3D Models     Store     Library

Search GreatBuildings.com by name of Building, Architect, or Place:   
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"           Advanced Search

Responses:




Post a Response -

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:


This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.



 

Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including BuilderSpace.com .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/25657.html