Following up on yesterday's twin Curbed threads, and this morning's linkage, about the fresh fresh designs for Towers 3, 4, and 5 at the World Trade Center site, a look at some of the critical commentary swirling in the ether...
1) Tropolism: "Rogers: also known as a smaller and easier to maintain Hongkong and Shanghai Bank. With a little Bank of China in there. Thanks Foster and Pei for the idea! Boldly x-bracing on the exterior. Totally haven't seen that before. Really bold."
2) James Gardner, NYSun: "Yet, none of them is bad — which is already something in New York — and each demonstrates a certain grace and distinction."
3) Archinect boards: "Architecture in this country has no chance until these goons die off. Hopefully the next generation of American architects is smart enough not to follow down the same path of uninspired dreck and bold enough to demand for and politically provide an architecture and urbanism that responds to the very dire needs of American society."
All well and good, but you know what? To hell with nuanced discussion and reasoned debate. At the core, you're either for the design of these three new towers, or against them. So which is it?