The proposal is a poor replacement to Norman Foster’s towers. There is little consideration given to the history of the site itself. BIG’s office (and a number of OMA projects as well to a lesser extent) has a tendency to over rationalize their idea. In this case, the argument that the height of the stacks relate to the Tribeca landscape is a “first year” playbook rather than a serious design gesture. What is even more odd is no matter how much contextual explanation is provided on their projects, they keep coming back to the stacked volumes again and again, right from their first set of projects (mountain dwellings). how is that possible? the only logical explanations are that a) they like stacked boxes and b) there is a fair amount of post rationalizing going on after they agree on the volume. neither theories justify the non-serious gestures of the tower, the cheapest of which is the ticker tape. does such a site deserve thoughtless marketing. In the end, the problem may not be all with BIG’s design but rather the idea that the construction on the site has to be tall. one of the most beautiful additions to the site is Snohetta’s museum which is contextural and scaled appropriately for the setting. As one of the most influential architecture offices, BIG needs to give their urban interventions more serious consideration.