We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
We shall not yield I saw an interview on ITV news tonight of a fellow in NYC who has seen all of the new proposed designs for replacing the World Trade Center.
He said unequivocably the selected design will restore the New York skyline, make it as it was. All designs are tall and some are even taller than the WTC buildings were. All are said to be stunning. The man could hardly stop from grinning as he spoke. You could see the glee in his eyes.
This sounds more like the America I grew up in.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I hope the choice of design is guided by economics more than ego.
I wonder if it will be yet another easily damaged glass tower. Terrorists please form an orderly queue.
Sounds like GREAT NEWS!
Just FWIW….
(i) the WTC were the exact opposite of a “glass tower” and had nothing to do with “glass towers”
(ii) the “skin” of a skyscraper (whether 100% glass, 100% brick, or whatever) is utterly unrelated to the strength and structural issues of the building.
(iii) the WTC collapsed for one simple reason. If you remember “environmentalism” (another form of socialism) which was a big fad in the 70s and 80s? … during construction of the WTC, once about the 70th floor was reached, there was a enviro “scare” concerning asbestos, so the frame of the WTC (both buildings) was NOT coated with asbestos above the appox. 70th floor. Unsurprisingly, this caused the frame to (duh) melt in the fire caused by the avgas. That’s all there is to the collapse of the WTV buildings. Obviously, evidently, the buildings did not collapse when a jumbo hit them (a stunning testament to their strength, and the cleverness of capitalist engineering) … they very simply collapsed when the frame melted, indeed at the point the asbestos coating stopped.
(iv) I would certainly hope the new design is driven by ego and selfishness — perhaps the selfishness of one architect trying to “show off” and hence enrich himself. (This is the only way, ever, that great buildings have happened.)
Regarding the designs, where can we see the new designs online?
The only real “architect” (in the selfish, powerful sense) that quoted on the recent round was Calatrava, the brilliant Italian true engineer and architect. (He invents a lot of bridges and so on.) The rest were just wishy washy groups of yes-men.
The other architects’ summaries were alopng the lines of “we hope to social construct balance blah blah blah…,” whereas Calatrava’s summary was more or less: “We hope to express the singular mind of Calatrava in the building.” which is a fairly bold statement.
I find myself in complete agreement with JP May, so this comment is a complete, egotistical waste of space.
If this second WTC gets destroyed, will it be built in the same way for a third time?
Oh sorry, I forgot: behaving rationally in the face of deadly enemies is “letting the terrorists win”.
FWIW
i) The WTC was not a glass tower, true. I am against glass towers as they are so easily converted into shrapnel, I fully expect the replacement designs to be glass towers.
ii) The ‘skin’ of the WTC was the structure which held it all up,that is why the floors were so open plan. However my objection to glass as a skin stems from the above and also utter boredom with enormous vertical greenhouses.
iii) the WTC collapsed for one simple reason. Someone flew aircraft into it, the conflagration weakened the structure. It would have been a comfort for the people jumping out of the windows to escape the flames if the structure had been fully coated with asbestos, although even more comfort would have been possible if the building had been less than 4 stories high.
iv) I would certainly hope the new design is driven by sanity and practicality — the selfishness of one architect trying to “show off” and hence enrich himself often results in wobbly bridges and uncomfortable, expensive buildings that only last a few decades despite all the advantages of modern materials and techniques.
Do you like my new socks? an architect designed them. Yes, it is a shame that my feet aren’t a different shape. Walk around? Oh, no you cant walk around in them, they would break. Quite reasonable, actually, 50 gajillion euros.
Yes, the rational thing to do whould have been to close down the WTC after the 1993 bombing. When the terrorists tried to bring the towers down the first time. After that we should have all converted to islam and instituted sharia.
I’m curious, do you think rebuilding the Pentagon to its previous dimensions an irrational act?
I would very much like to see chapter and verse on the environmentalists, asbestos and the 70th floor. I would love it to be true, it’s just that it might turn out to be an urban myth.
Correct me if i’m wrong, but doesn’t asbestos have pretty well-proven health risks?
Like, this decision wasn’t about saving the planet; more about the people working in/on the wtc not getting lung cancer & a host of other nasties. I may have my facts wrong, or it may be that the type of asbestos that should’ve been used isn’t dangerous, and its installation only got stopped because of blanket asbestos-phobia, but to call health scares ‘environmentalism’ seems to be pushing the envelope slightly.
Peter:
Why not build another monument to World Trade? It should be done and as lavish and glorious as possible. It’s not behaving irrationally it’s stating that trade is a core element of our society and culture and that we won’t deny that in the face of aggression. If they knock it down then yes we bloody well build another one. Not rebuilding it because of fear that it might get attacked again is capitulation, do we agree to everything demanded of us becasue of fear of violence?
And Zack:
You seem to be suggesting that from now on all buildings should be built in military style as they are all to be considered defence installations, Short Squat Hard Concreted Slot Window Bunkers should become the norm, because God forbid anyone build anything that isn’t strictly utilitarian. And we wouldn’t want to be too showy in case our aggresive neighbours take offence.
To the nay-sayers: come on. Get real. Do you actually think anybody is going to be able to successfully hijack an airliner for building-impact purposes again? The passengers know that it’s death if the hijackers succeed (as in Flight 93), and the pilots will be armed. So build it big and build it with ego.
However, then you have to get people to rent the property, and that might be a problem.
Patrick wanted chapter and verse on the WTC/asbestos thing. Here’s a link that has the piece that first brought up the allegation and a reponse by an architect in NYC (whose website happens to have lots of anti-government news, historical documents, etc.):
http://cryptome.org/wtc-junksci.htm
Whoops! Sorry about not making the link for my previous message active.
Yes you do build it with ego. Nations have spirits and crippling that spirit is the first step to defeating them. Americans are brash, outward looking, inventive and free. Whatever you may say about the origins of the WTC (ie that it was built by public money, for which it was at least an investment rather than a waste) it is typically American.
Yes, build it bigger. Don’t respect or fear the bastards: spit in their eye and piss on their graves.
It’s *their* spirit *we* are out to break. And we will.
If anyone thinks an airplane will ever be successfully hijacked again in America, think again. At the first sign of trouble, all passengers will storm the hijackers in a frenzy, b/c the consequences of inaction are quite clear to us now.
As for the towers, this is great news indeed. Build them of glass or build them of thermoplastic carbon fiber, I could care less, just build them formidable, bold, and beautiful and restore NYC’s skyline!
Personaly, I think we should include a floor dedicated as a mosque in both towers of a rebuilt WTC.
This will accomplish two purposes.
1) It will show the tolerance of American society.
2) Given the obsession that these goons have shown with the WTC, if they think about making another attack, they will have to face the certainty that they will kill large numbers of Muslims. Not that I think they’d bat an eye about doing so, but it will make it harder for them to spin the deaths of Muslims in the attack afterwards.
I am not suggesting that we build in any particular style in the sense of shape but I do think we should build to last. If you are going to do something, do it right then you can concentrate on something else and not keep going back and fixing stuff. I don’t think that you should necessarily build in a military style to resist attack because any attack will be tailored to exploit weaknesses, but build to survive the elements and forseeable accidents.
Was the pentagons design a rational act? who can say? Is rebuilding it the same a rational act? who cares?
Also screw whether it upsets anyone. Some people will always be upset by something.
I think the UN offices should be moved to the top thirty floors.
Neuman’s got it.
I would LOVE to see them re-built, essentially, and I even like the “middle finger” design that went around the Net last year.
But the ultimate question for everyone posting here is not “would you personally live and work there”. (YES, I’ll show the bastards!)
The question is, “will you personally rent floors 60 to 80 to put your investors $200 million dollar company there, to put the 150 employees whose lives and families are your responsibility there, and know that your company will attract the best workers in the business to set up shop on floor 78, and thus all of this is definitely in the best interests of your shareholders to locate your company in the rebuilt World Trade Center.
Ready to sign on the bottom line?
I have my doubts.
One more reason to hunt these fascist bastards down and kill them.