No, no, you're right, i was overzealous in my response. You're article neither criticizes GT, nor accuses it of any wrong doing.
My bad. Didn't mean to jump down anyones throat.
Sorry about that.
HC
TVCC Tower Can Be Repaired Says Architect
Last week we carried a link to a Global Times article claiming that the burnt-out TVCC in Beijing’s CBD would be repaired rather than demolished, despite the fact that one of the tower’s architects, Ole Scheeren, believes the structure is “irreparable.” The local branch of Scheeren’s firm, the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), has since contacted The Beijinger and said several claims in the Global Times' article were incorrect.
Firstly, OMA stated that Ole Scheeren does not believe the tower is irreparable, and reaffirmed the statement Scheeren made to the BBC last year: "The preliminary findings are that the building can be repaired… It's still intact and safe. There will mainly be a repair effort, but not a complete rebuilding."
OMA Beijing also pointed out that the TVCC Tower “is a concrete structure,” contrary to claims in the Global Times article that the structure is steel.
The TVCC Tower was engulfed in a massive fire on February 9, 2009. Since then there has been much speculation about the burnt-out structure's fate.
OMA’s head office in Rotterdam was contacted but declined to offer further comment on the TVCC Tower reconstruction.
Comments
New comments are displayed first.
Login or register to post comments.
Hi HuanChu,
Umm, where exactly is the sensationalism?? I talked about the Global Times article on our blog, and then the OMA contacted us and said the statements attributed to Ole Scheeren in the GT article were incorrect, which I duly reported above.
I didn't pass any comment at all on the Global Times reporter, let alone "burn him at the stake." The headline of the above post, and the gist of the article, is Scheeren apparently believes the TVCC Tower can be safely repaired. In what way is that sensationalist?
Dan Edwards
Wow TBJ, getting a little sensationalist now, aren’t you??
Several claims? Is two, now several?
And in your own original article, you point out that both of those claims, are quotes coming from someone else.
Sure, what people say should always be corroborated, but the fact the reporter didn’t, is hardly grounds to burn him at a stake, IMHO.
