just look at this

-snip-

Just because that more buildings are being built that are taller, doesn't mean that the building will become less famous. It was one of the most iconic buildings of the 20th century, and it will remain that way.

It's an iconic landmark and world renown!  Who'd be dumb enough to destroy a building like that?

 

They don't make them like that anymore.   Now it's all this post modernistic art deco crap imho.

 

Good day!

 

DrDetroit

Well even if they did want to rebuild it in the same spot, how would they disassemble it? I mean, they could do it piece by piece, beam by beam, but they literally can't use explosives. The empire state building is surrounded by smaller buildings that could get destroyed by debris. It'd be way too dangerous.

Unless there's a good reason for it (extreme damage, structurally unsound, whatever) I don't see a reason to tear it down and rebuild it. Hell, just build something brand new and original nearby, that's the exact same outcome but you keep the empire state building! What a deal!

They could just keep the shell, rebuild everything inside. It would look the same from the outside, but with an modern, updated, safer structal design with the same aesthetic desing.

Nah, I don't think that'd be necessary.

What would the Empire State be without the (original) Empire State Building?

Who cares how tall it is? Every thing will eventually be surpassed by something else. The Empire State Building will always have it's history and legacy regardless of how overshadowed it is by modern buildings. 

Where the hell did you get that idea?

 

Also, this should've been a poll.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous topics I've seen yet.

Why the hell would you want to rebuild it? There is nothing wrong with it, I see no structural failures of this building, its fine.

The empire state building sits as one of the iconic buildings in America and it shouldn't be taken down all because other buildings are surpassing it, that's like saying "hey the new ford explorer interceptor is out, lets get rid of all the Tahoes we have".

This just doesn't make any sense to me.

It's an iconic landmark and world renown!  Who'd be dumb enough to destroy a building like that?

 

They don't make them like that anymore.   Now it's all this post modernistic art deco crap imho.

 

Good day!

 

DrDetroit

the Idea is to then rebuild it like it was originally, but bigger. Feel free to disagree.

the Idea is to then rebuild it like it was originally, but bigger. Feel free to disagree.

 

I see -same style...but scale it larger.  Now that might make sense in theory, but probably not practical cost factor wise.

I see -same style...but scale it larger.  Now that might make sense in theory, but probably not practical cost factor wise.

yeah, that is what I was trying to say the whole time

You relaize that the new one World Trade Center could be easily just as attacked

What the hell? That has nothing to do with it. You're completely missing my point. What I am trying to say is that the NY skyline lost some of its uniqueness with 9/11. A redesign of the Empire State Building will remove yet another building that makes the NY skyline special, making it become more "generic."

What the hell? That has nothing to do with it. You're completely missing my point. What I am trying to say is that the NY skyline lost some of its uniqueness with 9/11. A redesign of the Empire State Building will remove yet another building that makes the NY skyline special, making it become more "generic."

Don't look at me, I wanted to see the original world trade center be rebuilt which would have been cheaper, and quicker, than constucing 4 buildings that the city didn't need

I don't think it needs re-building.

 

Chers.

Don't look at me, I wanted to see the original world trade center be rebuilt which would have been cheaper, and quicker, than constucing 4 buildings that the city didn't need

 

Why on Earth would they rebuild WTC as the exact same? I think that's a dishonor to all those who died as result of 9/11, and that's just a lot of money for the rebuilding of two towers that were knocked down by terrorists - with the exact same appearance. I'm glad they did something unique with the new WTC, and they also dedicated quite a lot of land to it's memorial. Also, responding to the last part of the quote above, there were already multiple WTC buildings before 9/11. I believe only 3 were destroyed and another seriously damaged, so the construction of new buildings was totally fine. Also, I'm sure that they didn't just build them for the shits and giggles, saying that the city didn't need them simply because they didn't dedicate anything to the skyline is absurd.

 

Also, methinks it's worth mentioning that the statement "the new WTC could easily be knocked down just the same" is quite invalid. If you recall, airport security was pretty lax before 9/11, and the chances of three terrorists getting through airport security with weapons is near impossible. Even if they did get through security, they'd be shot down well before they even got near the New York skyline.

 

---

 

also

sky scrapper

 

Why on Earth would they rebuild WTC as the exact same? I think that's a dishonor to all those who died as result of 9/11, and that's just a lot of money for the rebuilding of two towers that were knocked down by terrorists - with the exact same appearance. I'm glad they did something unique with the new WTC, and they also dedicated quite a lot of land to it's memorial. Also, responding to the last part of the quote above, there were already multiple WTC buildings before 9/11. I believe only 3 were destroyed and another seriously damaged, so the construction of new buildings was totally fine. Also, I'm sure that they didn't just build them for the shits and giggles, saying that the city didn't need them simply because they didn't dedicate anything to the skyline is absurd.

 

Also, methinks it's worth mentioning that the statement "the new WTC could easily be knocked down just the same" is quite invalid. If you recall, airport security was pretty lax before 9/11, and the chances of three terrorists getting through airport security with weapons is near impossible. Even if they did get through security, they'd be shot down well before they even got near the New York skyline.

 

---

 

also

no not really, I would have been a symbol of how America can get itself back up, and correct me if I'm wrong, but building 2 buildings would have been cheaper than building 4. Im not trying to disrespect anyone, I just feel they should have just rebuilt the original world trade center. And the New one isn't that bad, and it looks a little bit like the old one from a distance, now that I think about it.

I like The Empire State Building because of the way its built. Most towers now a like a big box tall with windows or very rounded.

 

Take the  432 park ave

 

now I uselessly dont swear on the forums but that thing is just a fucking eye-sore

 

or there all glassy like 

oh look at the refection that's not a bad idea 

 

not I'm not an american but when I see these too buildings I thought 'were are they?'

The Empire State Building will always be know and not over shadow by all these 'look a like' buildings now.

 

 

just my 2 cents though 

Edited March 26, 201511 yr by 0taku