(Close Window)
Topic: The award for worst design concept of 2011 goes to...
Message: Posted by: jazzy snazzy (Dec 9, 2011 01:34PM)
This reminds me of [i]something[/i] but I can't quite put my finger on it.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u203/jazzysnazzy_album/Towers_preview.jpg[/img]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/proposed-s-korean-towers-resemble-exploding-world-trade-center_611802.html
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Dec 9, 2011 01:39PM)
They knew exactly what they were doing, and I'm sure they thought it was hilarious at the time.

What a bunch of gutless twerps. If your going to pull something like that, then stand up and OWN it. Don't insult half the world trying to pretend it was some sort of coincidence.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 9, 2011 01:49PM)
It certainly wouldn't have occurred to me without the accompanying text.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Dec 9, 2011 02:03PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-09 14:49, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
It certainly wouldn't have occurred to me without the accompanying text.
[/quote]

I agree. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 9, 2011 03:25PM)
[img]http://steadfastfinances.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/South-Park-rabble-rabble-rabble.jpg[/img]

Rabble Rabble Rabble!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 9, 2011 03:30PM)
I hope they checked with some of our regular posters to make sure it's an accurate depiction of where Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld planted the nanothermite..
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2011 06:14PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-09 15:03, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-12-09 14:49, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
It certainly wouldn't have occurred to me without the accompanying text.
[/quote]

I agree. :ohyes:
[/quote]
Disagree with your agrees. :)

Pretty blatant to me.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 9, 2011 06:37PM)
If you looked at the picture without the advance text I think you might have had a different opinion.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Dec 9, 2011 07:23PM)
It is quite obvious what it resembles and if built as such is a slap in the face to the USA.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 9, 2011 07:39PM)
... yeah you know those South Koreans always conspiring against America! Onyo Sung'sang'ni!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 9, 2011 08:55PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-09 14:34, jazzy snazzy wrote:
This reminds me of [i]something[/i] but I can't quite put my finger on it.
[img]http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u203/jazzysnazzy_album/Towers_preview.jpg[/img]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/proposed-s-korean-towers-resemble-exploding-world-trade-center_611802.html
[/quote]
It actually reminded me of Canadian architect Moshe Safdie's 'Habitat 67', from the 1967 World Expo in Montreal. Is that what you meant?

[img]http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/habitat67.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 9, 2011 09:23PM)
No no no... that is Al Quida attacking a embassy.
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Dec 9, 2011 10:23PM)
I'm surprised they didn't have the tail end of a plane sticking out.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (Dec 9, 2011 10:33PM)
Once they heard the drones warming-up, they issued an apology. :)
Message: Posted by: Kingman (Dec 12, 2011 02:23PM)
I dunno, my first thought was just a building in the clouds. Guess it depends on a point of view.


Kingman
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 12, 2011 02:24PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-09 20:39, Salguod Nairb wrote:
... yeah you know those South Koreans always conspiring against America! [/quote]

With the Dutch no less.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 12, 2011 02:33PM)
Curious that the "Gosh, I don't notice anything" group has no comment on the double-talk coming from the design team:

"it was not our intention to create a an image resembling the attacks, nor did we See the resemblance during the design process."

And

"I nave to admit that we also thought of the 9/11 attacks."
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 12, 2011 03:32PM)
You're right... I have no idea why this pretty young lady is looking away... oh hold on a second....

[img]http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/optical_illusions_images_2/images/youngwomanoldlady.jpg.pagespeed.ce.6pQsYyEGan.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 12, 2011 03:36PM)
I don't read Dutch, so I take the comment in the Weekly Standard with a grain of salt.

Notice also that most (maybe all) of the "I didn't notice it" do not live in the US. It is quite possible not front and centre of our minds the way it may be for Americans (and especially New Yorkers).

One wonders what the point of doing it deliberately would be. What could a Dutch archtect have to gain by making a "cloud" that resembled the NY Twin Towers in Korea?

Anyone able to read the Dutch article?

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 12, 2011 03:39PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-12 16:32, Salguod Nairb wrote:
You're right... I have no idea why this pretty young lady is looking away... oh hold on a second....

[img]http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/optical_illusions_images_2/images/youngwomanoldlady.jpg.pagespeed.ce.6pQsYyEGan.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

And I have no idea how members of the design team perceived a resemblance to 9/11 without having any "advance text" or captioning available to them.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 12, 2011 04:28PM)
In 1987 a tornado ripped through Edmonton, killing 27 people and causing hundreds of millions of dollars damage. It was probably the worst natural disaster in our province's history.

A couple of weeks later, a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon described the devastation of a tornado with details that looked an awful lot like the Edmonton tornado. Understandably people were outraged, and Bill Watterson replied that the similarities were a mere coincidence and that no slight was intended.

Maybe this is a similar situation.

Maybe.

John
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Dec 12, 2011 04:29PM)
I'll accept that some people saw the design without accompanying text or images and never thought twice about 9/11, or the resemblence to the images of the twin towers prior to collapse. That's fine.

But now everyone HAS seen the design, and the accompanying text and images. So now what? Still ok or no? Even if it was a TOTAL coincidence, you still think they should go ahead with the design? Cause from what I can tell despite the double talk (and I'm not inclined to believe that somehow the Weekly Standard purposely mistranslated the piece, or purposely misquoted the design firm.) and thier "apology" about the design, there are no plans to change anything. It's going foward as far as I can tell.

So now that you can "see" it, what do you think about it? Or are there still some who can look at that design next to a picture of the twin towers burning and about to collapse still say "Nah, I don't see it."?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 12, 2011 05:40PM)
Ummmm... you do know the world doesn't revolve around the United States don't ya? I mean we could try to have every architect in the world send their building plans to the U.S. to see if it offends anyone.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 12, 2011 05:48PM)
We're not talking about some minor offensiveness here, Douglas. We're talking about blatantly bad taste that any reasonable person would probably view as offensive, regardless of their nationality.

When I saw the photo I immediately thought of the Twin Towers before I read the caption.

The entire world saw what happened to the world trade center and that horrifying image is burned forever into the minds of thousands, if not millions. Would it have been ok to erect a downtown building in the shape of a nuclear explosion less than ten years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't think so, even though the world doesn't revolve around the Japanese either.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 12, 2011 06:25PM)
Well said, Bob. You maintained a restraint I would not have.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 12, 2011 06:27PM)
Well Bob, I believe that I am a reasonable person, and I disagree.

But I think that you can disagree without calling my reason into question.

John
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 12, 2011 06:35PM)
So those of us that did not jump to that conclusion are unreasonable? I did not perceive any malice in the article and the limited angle of the photo could be perceived as bias.

Should I expect to be banned because I have a voice and chose to disagree? It's not like I mentioned anything Taboo such as Whoppers...
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 12, 2011 06:36PM)
Yay! Magnus!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 12, 2011 06:42PM)
Here a a few other angles:


[img]http://www.artinfo.com/sites/default/files/styles/570w460h/public/MVRDV-2.jpg[/img]

[img]http://online.wsj.com/media/111211pod06_J.jpg[/img]


Of course, these are merely renderings. The building has not been constructed.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 12, 2011 06:49PM)
Yep, but I guess anyone wanting to build any future pair/twin towers need to do a survey in advance.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 12, 2011 07:21PM)
No - they would just be wise to exercise some taste.

Didn't mean to imply you were unreasonable, Magnus. I've read most of your posts and think you are an eminently reasonable man. But I think you would agree that it is not unreasonable to be offended by the design.

Or maybe it's better to put it this way - Is it reasonable to continue the project knowing that many will find it offensive?

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 12, 2011 07:31PM)
I guess it is the word 'offended' that bothers me and the following keeps popping into my head....

“There can be no offence without intention or knowledge. It must be proved on record that a particular offence has been committed either with the intention or with the knowledge,”

Yes, I can see people perceiving offence, but I don't see the intent to insult or offend being the goal of the architects.

Bob, I am disagreeing with you not disrespecting you.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 12, 2011 07:47PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-12 20:21, mastermindreader wrote:


Or maybe it's better to put it this way - Is it reasonable to continue the project knowing that many will find it offensive?

Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

Now that, I think, is the most interesting question. Reaction to that one rendering has been overwhelmingly negative. It is hard to see how they could possibly overcome that. They have two choices--back down by withdrawing or modifying the design, or to insist that once built no one would confuse the cloud for the terror site. My guess is that discretion will be the better part of valour and that they will back down.

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 12, 2011 08:42PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-12 20:31, Salguod Nairb wrote:


“There can be no offence without intention or knowledge. It must be proved on record that a particular offence has been committed either with the intention [i]or with the knowledge[/i],”

Yes, I can see people perceiving offence, but I don't see the intent to insult or offend being the goal of the architects.

[/quote]

However, by your own quotation, the issue isn't exclusively intent, but intent *or knowledge*. And has apparently been admitted, they do have the [i]knowledge[/i] of the resemblance (and apparently recognized it at the outset).

Of course, I would certainly agree that they have the right to offend whomever they want. They don't, however, have a right not to get called out on it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 12, 2011 08:49PM)
Douglas- I totally agree that it is unlikely that the architects intended to cause offense. I seriously doubt that they did. My guess is that they just weren't thinking about what the design actually looked like when viewed at a wide angle. I just saw a story on the television news regarding the reactions of 9-11 survivors and their families (who come from all over the world, not just the US). They are, apparently, very upset about this and I believe that is totally understandable.

I know you weren't being disrespectful. I just didn't think that that this particular subject was an example of Americans thinking the world revolves around them. It was the WORLD Trade Center, after all, where companies from around the world had offices. People of all faiths and nationalities lost loved ones that day. (I, too, had friends who perished there. The Trade Center was where several companies I did business with had their headquarters and I also performed there on several occasions. I guess I was lucky, though - my daughter had just applied for a job in the twin towers and was to have started work later in the month.)

Magnus- I really should have phrased in that way in the first place. Now that they know that the imagery is hurtful to many I, too, believe that they will change the design. They have, after all, already apologized, and am inclined to believe the apology was sincere.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 12, 2011 09:06PM)
Exactly. But since it wasn't meant with any malice I don't see a need to change the building design (though I suspect they will) having explained their original intention. I have been outside the U.S. for the last 8 years fighting the good fight (won’t go into detail on a public forum) and have gained some perspective. It reminded me of the protest over the Mosque semi-near the WTC. My opinion would have been different if this building was in Iran, but having been to South Korea I did not see a reason for the venom.

Lobo, yep they were called on it and offered a reasonable explanation. I would categorize this as a misunderstanding rather than a direct offence.
Message: Posted by: foolsnobody (Dec 13, 2011 12:26AM)
I wonder if the rent will be higher or lower for a "jutting out unit" than for a "normal" one? Or if your "jutting out" unit is cheaper if there is another "jutting out" unit jutting out above it, maybe even farther out than one's own? Come to think of it, can they add more "jutting out units" later and really screw up your view like in some U.S. land development schemes? All these questions arise.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 13, 2011 01:16AM)
Whether or not an action is offensive has nothing to do with the intent of the offender, but rather by the extent of its effect on others. I might think it very clever to go to a church sponsored costume party dressed as the Pope wearing a tutu, but I imagine that I would have a hard time denying it was offensive simply because of my own "misunderstanding" of, or obliviousness to, what is and isn't appropriate.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Dec 13, 2011 08:15AM)
They knew exactly what they were doing.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 08:57AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 02:16, mastermindreader wrote:
Whether or not an action is offensive has nothing to do with the intent of the offender, but rather by the extent of its effect on others. I might think it very clever to go to a church sponsored costume party dressed as the Pope wearing a tutu, but I imagine that I would have a hard time denying it was offensive simply because of my own "misunderstanding" of, or obliviousness to, what is and isn't appropriate.
[/quote]

You’re painting a very narrow picture. My argument is valid if the party wasn't at a church. Someone may be offended at the party but the party as a collective. Erecting a building in South Korea which was designed by the Dutch is not the same as building it in NY at ground zero. I will concede the possibility that the architect may have created the design to create controversy (I said possibility) to create a buzz about the architect. I don't think it is the case, but in this current world it is not impossible. Would you concede that there is a possibility that Americans are becoming hypersensitive (I said possibility)?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 13, 2011 09:22AM)
Hypersensitive regarding the feelings of the multinational survivors and families of the victims of the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor? No, I don't think so.

And, as I said, the architects' intent, or lack of it, is irrelevant to those who find the design patently offensive.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 09:45AM)
In general Sir, not about 911. Consider Fox news, CNN, and MSNBC trying to fill 24 hours of news and trying to find stories to achieve a gut/offended reaction. On a cultural level I believe it is creating a hypersensitive state.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2011 09:52AM)
I have to admit to not having read all the posts. (Bob, nice to see your reaction though.)

But let me just say good. I am in total support of it. NO WAY anyone should take our thoughts or feelings into account. It is not offensive in the least John is right and so is everyone else.

Good. This heralds the END OF THE PC ERA! No more having to worry about the feelings of others if some nut wants to burn a holy book of another faith. No more worry about the Ground Zero Mosque. No more worry about offending those who we think need to be searched.

Or is it that WE are the only ones who need to be so enlightened?

Bob I am with Tom on this. I could not be as restrained as you were. Thank you.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 09:56AM)
Any catastrophe which befalls that structure would not surprise me. If the designers were ignorant of the image they created, what other things might they be ignorant of?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 10:05AM)
My argument has been one of architecture and intent, not 911. I understand some people are emotionaly vested with their point of view, but not everyone see's it the same way as they do. Just because we don't agree does not make us unreasonable.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 13, 2011 10:23AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 11:05, Salguod Nairb wrote:
My argument has been one of architecture and intent, not 911. I understand some people are emotionaly vested with their point of view, but not everyone see's it the same way as they do. Just because we don't agree does not make us unreasonable.
[/quote]

Are you talking about the design not being offensive, or the building not being offensive if they build it as submitted, or both?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 13, 2011 10:30AM)
Douglas-

You're not unreasonable. I already said that. You just have a different view than many of us about what is and isn't offensive.

And to answer your "general-not related to 9/11" question about whether I think we are, as a culture, becoming hypersensitive to events because of 24 hour news coverage - Possibly. But those who are watching TV for 24 hour periods are probably suffering from many other maladies as well, the least of which would be hypersensitivity.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 10:32AM)
I guess both. The idea of a floating cloud of building cells is a clever idea, especially if they have an open air 'park'. I still don't think they planned on offending anyone and it would be a rather expensive way to do so if they did.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 10:36AM)
Sorry Bob, I didn't mean to take a dig at you about the unreasonable comment which you clarified earlier. It was meant as a response to other posts.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 13, 2011 10:50AM)
For the record, I find Bob and Brian to be very reasonable fellows. Good-natured, funny and sympathetic to opposing views.

John

BTW: Salguod--you have two first names or two surnames. Which one is your given name and which one is your family name, dang it?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 10:56AM)
It is my performing name spelled backwards, but Brian is my given name. Spelling it backwards gives it a Middle Eastern ring.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 13, 2011 10:57AM)
The New World Order
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2011 11:00AM)
Please, one of the people who don't see it as offensive explain to me why it is not offensive when it brings to mind the intentional death of many people? Why is it that when Americans do it it is offensive and others can take all the shots they like? Nonsense.

Unreasonable? Problably just a little bit. I just wish all the PC thought would extend back to us. It only seems 'reasonable' doesn't it?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 13, 2011 11:02AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 11:56, Salguod Nairb wrote:
It is my performing name spelled backwards, but Brian is my given name. Spelling it backwards gives it a Middle Eastern ring.
[/quote]

That's something else you have in common with Bob. "Bob" is his name spelled backwards, too.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 13, 2011 11:03AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 11:57, tommy wrote:
The New World Order
[/quote]

Trilateral Commission
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 11:10AM)
@ Lobo Ha!

@ Danny I don't think it was intentional. Once you take into consideration our long friendship with South Korea it is hard to find malice. Yes, some people will be offended because they will associate it with a horrific day. However, once it has been explained that it is suppose to be a floating cloud connecting two buildings perhaps people will see it as that. Also keep in mind that the building hasn't even been built yet.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 13, 2011 11:27AM)
It is also important to keep in mind that this is a single artist's drawing of a building that has not been built. None of the other drawings look even remotely like the offending image (IMO). If the building were actually constructed, how much work would you have to do to get in the right position to see the offending image? Who knows?

John
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 12:18PM)
When people try this hard to justify their offensive position, it speaks volumes.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 12:32PM)
Ok, I will try to see things from your perspective.

[img]http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/sites/default/files/siftmedia-accountingweb/u176764/2011-04-29_095644_smiley_fingers_in_ears.gif[/img]

Nope, didn't work. I can still see both sides of the discussion. So what am I doing wrong?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 13, 2011 12:36PM)
[quote]On 2011-12-12 17:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
In 1987 a tornado ripped through Edmonton, killing 27 people and causing hundreds of millions of dollars damage. It was probably the worst natural disaster in our province's history.

A couple of weeks later, a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon described the devastation of a tornado with details that looked an awful lot like the Edmonton tornado. Understandably people were outraged, and Bill Watterson replied that the similarities were a mere coincidence and that no slight was intended.[/quote]
It's likely that the Calvin and Hobbes strip was drawn well before the tornado hit Edmonton; my understanding is that comic strip artists try to have a backlog of material lest they run short.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 13, 2011 12:37PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 13:18, Tom Cutts wrote:
When people try this hard to justify their offensive position, it speaks volumes.
[/quote]

Are you referring to me, Tom?

What offensive position are you accusing me of having?

John
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 13, 2011 12:41PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 13:36, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2011-12-12 17:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
In 1987 a tornado ripped through Edmonton, killing 27 people and causing hundreds of millions of dollars damage. It was probably the worst natural disaster in our province's history.

A couple of weeks later, a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon described the devastation of a tornado with details that looked an awful lot like the Edmonton tornado. Understandably people were outraged, and Bill Watterson replied that the similarities were a mere coincidence and that no slight was intended.[/quote]
It's likely that the Calvin and Hobbes strip was drawn well before the tornado hit Edmonton; my understanding is that comic strip artists try to have a backlog of material lest they run short.
[/quote]

Of course, and that is the point. The nerve was raw and people were understandably upset. But it is a mistake to accuse the cartoonist of targeting a real-life news event. (BTW my memory was slightly off; the tornado was July 31, 1987 and the strip came out in November 6, 1987.)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2011 12:41PM)
I am refering to those who hate Ann Coulter and don't want to hear an explination. I am refering to those who hate Fox News and don't bother to do their research. Why is it in those cases the explinations are excuses? Transparant.

Like I said why not hold the world to the same standard? IDEAS are offensive, at least we have been told that.

Tom you are right, it speaks volumes... and isn't really as shocking as it should be to me.

Tough to hide now and tough to deflect what is really felt.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 12:48PM)
Danny, your first post mentioned that you had not read all the posts yet. Have you since read them and the attached back story?
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 01:08PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 13:32, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Ok, I will try to see things from your perspective.

[img]http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/sites/default/files/siftmedia-accountingweb/u176764/2011-04-29_095644_smiley_fingers_in_ears.gif[/img]

Nope, didn't work. I can still see both sides of the discussion. So what am I doing wrong?
[/quote]Being a jerk about it. I haven't read anything here by you to make me believe you see both sides. I may have missed it between all your "it's an American problem" posts.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 01:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 13:37, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 13:18, Tom Cutts wrote:
When people try this hard to justify their offensive position, it speaks volumes.
[/quote]

Are you referring to me, Tom?

What offensive position are you accusing me of having?

John
[/quote]Among others...

I had a childhood friend. One day we were playing tag in our neighborhood. He was more comfortable running through his neighbors yards than I. In one case he trampled right through a neighbor's flower bed. Seeing this the neighbor called him over and gave him what for about trampling her newly planted flower bed. I'm not sure what he said but after the neighbor closed the door my friend (not with malice but just of stupidity) ran right through the same flower bed in leaving the property.

Likewise... Designing the building the way it is, was at best just plain ignorant. Building it will be offensive.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 01:17PM)
Tom, you are the one generalizing that if anyone disagrees or see's things different from you are speaking volumes about themselves.

I have said that I can see both sides in previous posts. I will admit that people that are hypersensitive is one of my pet peeves.

The original discussion (IMO) is about the perception of the building, and if there was an intent to offend.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2011 01:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 13:48, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Danny, your first post mentioned that you had not read all the posts yet. Have you since read them and the attached back story?
[/quote]

I have not read ALL the posts. That does not mean I didn't read the attached back story. It does not change anything. It is still pathetic.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2011 01:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 14:17, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Tom, you are the one generalizing that if anyone disagrees or see's things different from you are speaking volumes about themselves.

I have said that I can see both sides in previous posts. I will admit that people that are hypersensitive is one of my pet peeves.

The original discussion (IMO) is about the perception of the building, and if there was an intent to offend.
[/quote]

And he is generalizing about those who make excuses for things like this not about those who disagree with him. Get it straight. If I am not mistaken, all of those non Americans who are not "offended" are really offended by so many other things.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 01:36PM)
It's not an excuse to have a difference in opinion.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 13, 2011 01:39PM)
Just curious, Tom. Are any of these comments offensive?

What a bunch of gutless twerps—Marlin 1894

It is quite obvious what it resembles and if built as such is a slap in the face to the USA—Acesover

I'm surprised they didn't have the tail end of a plane sticking out—Tom Jorgenson

Any catastrophe which befalls that structure would not surprise me—Tom Cutts
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 01:47PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 14:17, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Tom, you are the one generalizing that if anyone disagrees or see's things different from you are speaking volumes about themselves.

I have said that I can see both sides in previous posts. I will admit that people that are hypersensitive is one of my pet peeves.

The original discussion (IMO) is about the perception of the building, and if there was an intent to offend.
[/quote]

Nope, I didn't generalize anything of the sort. But I'm amused at your generalization of my specific statement. Well played irony!

Are you admitting to being hypersensitive about hypersensitive people? :lol:

There appears to be one discussion about semantics and intention, and one about the actual outcome.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 01:50PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 14:39, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Just curious, Tom. Are any of these comments offensive?
[/quote]
Mostly the final one for being taken out of context. Shame on you, but thank you for saving me the time of exposing your true character.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 01:55PM)
It must be wonderful to live in a world of absolutes.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 13, 2011 01:56PM)
Tom, personal attacks are completely inappropriate at the Café. I am reporting your post.

Now you have a chance to reveal your character. Are you pleased to attack me because we disagree about a sketch of a proposed building? Are you man enough to delete your personal attack?

Now you have a chance to reveal your character, Tom. What will it be?

John
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Dec 13, 2011 02:02PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 14:39, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Just curious, Tom. Are any of these comments offensive?

What a bunch of gutless twerps—Marlin 1894
[/quote]

Oh well, you know. I didn't [i]mean[/i] for it to be offensive. You know, if those guys would be offended by being called gutless twerps, well then, you know, I'm sorry. I feel bad for them. That was [i]certainly[/i] never my intention.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 02:10PM)
Magnus,

What personal attack?

Sorry to interrupt continue on...
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 13, 2011 02:27PM)
You are commenting on my character, Tom. There is no doubt that you are being disparaging.

If you wish to disagree with what I say, then let's talk. But for you to go on about "exposing your true character" is utter rubbish. And I suspect you know it.

So Tom. Care to retract comments about my character, and to engage in a respectful discussion?

Honourable people can disagree without either one having their character called into question.

John
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 13, 2011 02:32PM)
I'm upset that I didn't get included on the list of offensive statements. I thought my comment, about going to a church costume party dressed like the Pope and wearing a tutu, was at least worthy of an honorable mention.

:eek:
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (Dec 13, 2011 02:34PM)
No harm, no foul. Move on.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 03:14PM)
Frankly John, I was just pointing out your choice to take a statement out of context to twist it's meaning in an attempt to defend yourself, since that is what you did here. Where'd all that other baggage come from?

In equality fairness, I must applaud your irony as well, calling someone out about "respectful discussion" after blatantly taking their words out of context. Well played.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 13, 2011 03:55PM)
No Tom. That was the third time you commented on my character.

As for the "out of context" defense, it was the first of two sentences.

[quote]Any catastrophe which befalls that structure would not surprise me. If the designers were ignorant of the image they created, what other things might they be ignorant of? [/quote]

It does not appear that much context was lost. But here it is so that there is no misunderstanding.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2011 04:39PM)
Where is all that famous understanding when it comes to Tom? Here is something they may be ignorant of...ready? Building.

Just one of the things that Tom could have been talking about. But since you disagree with him you immediately assume the worst.

You treat Tom with less understanding than those who propose this nonsense. It certainly says something.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 13, 2011 05:31PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 14:17, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Tom, you are the one generalizing that if anyone disagrees or see's things different from you are speaking volumes about themselves.

I have said that I can see both sides in previous posts. I will admit that people that are hypersensitive is one of my pet peeves.

The original discussion (IMO) is about the perception of the building, and if there was an intent to offend.
[/quote]

You posted a direct quotation about elements of offense, but you seem to only be taking the part that matches up to your position. Your quotation was that othe potential elements of offense include intent *or knowledge* and since then, you've written several posts that say there was no intent, so there's no offense. If they build it as designed, they do so with the knowledge of the resemblance; that matches [i]your[/i] posting regarding offensiveness.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2011 05:41PM)
Frankly, I don't think there was ever an intention to build this. I think it was a publicity stunt that was incredibly poorly conceived, and they had to scramble to justify themselves. I say this with no evidence whatsoever, just a hunch.

BTW it's interesting to take a look at the building on the left of the photo--it looks like it's leaning quite precipitously, as if--no, I'm probably just imagining it. ;)
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 05:48PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-12 20:31, Salguod Nairb wrote:
“There can be no offence without intention or knowledge. It must be proved on record that a particular offence has been committed either with the intention or with the knowledge,” [/quote]

Here is my post from earlier. I specifically left in the knowledge portion just so it did not appear that I was tailoring it to my position. It has been my position that they did not intend from the beginning to completion to design the building as an offense (I also said that I may be wrong and it could of been done for publicity, but I don't think it was). I also don't think everyone see's the building in the same context. That has been the nature of my argument. Both sides have added other issues and have been venting back and forth, but the original issue was the building and the context.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 13, 2011 05:59PM)
That's why I asked if you were referring to the design, or the building; regarding the building (if done unchanged), then lack of intent doesn't matter (per that quotation, anyway) - knowledge is a substitute for intent.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 06:12PM)
Yes if everyone thought the building was offensive, but not everyone does and that is where we are right now.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 13, 2011 06:33PM)
Wow, it has to be unanimous?!
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 06:34PM)
Brian, are you saying everyone must agree on something for it to be offensive?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 06:40PM)
No, but those who don't agree should not be ostracised for voicing their opinion.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 13, 2011 06:47PM)
Brian- You are misstating the the issue of knowledge. It doesn't matter if the designers don't believe it to be offensive. The "knowledge" they are charged with is that vast numbers of people are offended by it.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 13, 2011 06:48PM)
[quote]On 2011-12-13 19:33, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Wow, it has to be unanimous?![/quote]
No, it doesn't have to be unanimous; everyone just has to agree.

Sheesh!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2011 06:53PM)
To be fair not everyone thinks serial killing is despicable, but it is. (I get a point for NOT using a Hitler reference.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 07:01PM)
So since my opinion is different I then must support serial killing?

I found this online. You can read the whole story [url=http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/twin_tower-like_design_in_sout.html]HERE[/url]

A spokesperson for the developer stressed "there is nothing finalized about the design" and a spokesperson for MVRDV, the Dutch architecture firm responsible for the design, said the building plans had been published in Asia and Europe without controversy.

MVRDV apologized for the similarity on the company's Facebook page.

"It was not our intention to create an image resembling the attacks nor did we see the resemblance during the design process," the statement read.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 07:08PM)
Like I said, utter ignorance on the part of the design team. For skyscraper design professionals to overlook the obvious aesthetic similarities gives me pause to consider what other common sense they might be ignorant of.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 07:15PM)
So is Asia and Europe ignorant as well?

I'm trying to find a middle ground here but between the 'serial' and the 'ignorant' statements it is hard to have a dialog.

Kudos to you Bob for the friendly exchange.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2011 07:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 20:01, Salguod Nairb wrote:
So since my opinion is different I then must support serial killing?
[/quote]

Could you quote for me where I said that.

I will admit it is hard to have a dialogue, but the fact that you misrepresent what others say BLATANTLY may be part of the problem.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 07:34PM)
[quote]To be fair not everyone thinks serial killing is despicable, but it is.[/quote]

How I perceived the statement as to be... since not everyone thinks the building is an offense, but in your opinion it is. So indirectly I thought you were comparing the two ideas. I may be wrong but that is how I read it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2011 07:38PM)
Yea that is how you read it. The ACTUAL point was that perceptions varry. But hey since I disagree with you then YOU automaticaly perceive it in the worst possible way. That is on you brother.

See online communication is more about how YOU read things than how I write them. YOU ascribe intent, YOU ascribe tone and all those things that are missing from a live conversation moved to online. as much as 88% of communication is non verbal. Throw in cultural differences and you have online communication working at less than 12%.

So next time ask before you assume. It should get you further.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 13, 2011 07:42PM)
I wonder if the design plans made front page news when they were published in Asia and Europe. I suspect not. But, be that as it may, they made front page news here and were not well received, to put it mildly.

I believe the architects and developers got the message and will most likely modify the design.

I, for one, would like to see how the South Korean government has reacted to the controversy.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 13, 2011 07:46PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 20:15, Salguod Nairb wrote:
So is Asia and Europe ignorant as well?
[/quote] is everyone in Europe and Asia a design professional on the international stage?

I'd be interested to see it but... I only have one possible middle ground which comes to mind. And since that was not the concept or intention, it would be awfully darn hollow. That would be turning the structure into a memorial by inscribing around the ground floor of the building the names of those killed in the attacks.

Other than that the building of this aesthetic will be an offense to many, many people around the world. Enough to bring lousy press to the development. Probably.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 07:47PM)
I understand that Danny that is why I'm trying to come across as civil even if you disagree with me. I take in account that what I hear and what I say may be misconstrued.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 07:56PM)
Tom, I think the article was referring to the advertisement/photos being shown in Asia and Europe. They did not list the publications.

Bob, I suspect they will most likely change the plans. What if they connected three towers with a cloud? Would that suffice or do they need to change the shape of the towers completely?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 13, 2011 08:47PM)
I have no idea if that would work or not. But the basic "cloud" concept, as illustrated by the Expo 67 Habitat for Humanity photo posted earlier in the thread, looked pretty good.

Another factor that hasn't been mentioned yet is the fact that this year is the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and the new twin towers are very nearly complete. So the timing of the Dutch designers' publication of their design wasn't exactly stellar either.

For those who are interested in how New Yorkers are responding to the Korean "Cloud Towers," here is a link to the coverage on WPIX-TV, N.Y. :

http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-cloud-tower-anger,0,3904615.story

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Dec 13, 2011 08:58PM)
Since they are building multiple buildings I think a ring of cloud towers would be cool.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2011 09:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 20:47, Salguod Nairb wrote:
I understand that Danny that is why I'm trying to come across as civil even if you disagree with me. I take in account that what I hear and what I say may be misconstrued.
[/quote]

You understand yet you continue to misrepresent what people say.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2011 10:24PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 19:53, Dannydoyle wrote:
To be fair not everyone thinks serial killing is despicable, but it is. (I get a point for NOT using a Hitler reference.
[/quote]
So you're using the Lobo Jeffrey Dahmer defense, eh? I still think that's deserving of a percentage of a Hitler point. ;)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 13, 2011 10:31PM)
There's an entire generation growing up around us who mistakenly believe that reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy, not a tool of argumentation.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 13, 2011 10:34PM)
I don't think they did it on purpose, but it really is uncanny. I mean, if Osama Bin Laden had commissioned them to make it look like the WTC Towers on 9/11, it's hard to imagine what they would have done differently.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2011 10:55PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 23:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
There's an entire generation growing up around us who mistakenly believe that reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy, not a tool of argumentation.
[/quote]
Agreed. I actually think Godwin's law is misused and overgeneralized.


It's the kind of thing that Hitler would have used.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Dec 14, 2011 12:31AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 23:34, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I don't think they did it on purpose, but it really is uncanny. I mean, if Osama Bin Laden had commissioned them to make it look like the WTC Towers on 9/11, it's hard to imagine what they would have done differently.
[/quote]

They would've run away as it would've been Osama's ghost... :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Dec 14, 2011 12:32AM)
Why can't it be a memorial to remember those lost loved ones?

Why see it negatively?
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Dec 14, 2011 01:26AM)
Because that would be a bumper sticker slapped over the offense to cover it up.
Message: Posted by: JRob (Dec 14, 2011 05:41AM)
I find all this talk of "intent" hilarious. I say this because of something that happened not long after I joined this merry band. I mentioned that I thought a particular business got "gypped" on an ad and I was excoriated for using an offensive word. It was explained that my use of "gypped" was offensive to Romany people because of the association with gypsies. My ignorance of such and my absence of intent was no mitigation of how offensive the post was. The real kicker was when the same person who protested my use of "gypped" used the term "welsher" in reference to one who backs out on an agreement. Perhaps the poster was ignorant of the slur that is towards people who's lines of descent go through Wales. I guess the clown who jumped all over me was unaware of his hypocrisy so he isn't a hypocrite.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 14, 2011 09:39AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 23:24, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 19:53, Dannydoyle wrote:
To be fair not everyone thinks serial killing is despicable, but it is. (I get a point for NOT using a Hitler reference.
[/quote]
So you're using the Lobo Jeffrey Dahmer defense, eh? I still think that's deserving of a percentage of a Hitler point. ;)
[/quote]

Using the logic of some on this thread he simply had an "eating disorder".
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 14, 2011 09:41AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 23:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
There's an entire generation growing up around us who mistakenly believe that reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy, not a tool of argumentation.
[/quote]

Well I agree there is an entire generation that does not know how to use it so it is NOT a fallacy.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 14, 2011 03:16PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-14 10:39, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 23:24, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-12-13 19:53, Dannydoyle wrote:
To be fair not everyone thinks serial killing is despicable, but it is. (I get a point for NOT using a Hitler reference.
[/quote]
So you're using the Lobo Jeffrey Dahmer defense, eh? I still think that's deserving of a percentage of a Hitler point. ;)
[/quote]

Using the logic of some on this thread he simply had an "eating disorder".
[/quote]
Touché! Lol.