World Trade Center Developments [Archive] - Page 19

scumonkey

May 12th, 2009, 10:23 AM

UPDATE Last updated: May 12, 2009 08:23am
Silverstein: 2004 WTC Plan Must Stand
By Cody Lyon
http://www.globest.com/newspics/nyc_larryssilverstein.jpg
NEW YORK CITY-Responding to the buzz created by a New York Daily News story Monday that details an "incredible shrinking World Trade Center," Janno Lieber, president of Larry Silverstein’s World Trade Center Properties, says in a statement that the developer is "committed to the plan all stakeholders agreed on in 2004 and reaffirmed in 2006." Primarily blaming symptoms from the recession, the Daily News reported that Port Authority of New York and New Jersey wants to do away with three skyscrapers at the site by shrinking Towers 2 and 3 to four or five-floor stumps, suited more for retail than office.
But sources familiar with Port Authority goings-on tell GlobeSt.com that the information in the Daily News story has been in the public domain for weeks, if not months. They say that the Port Authority’s position is that Silverstein’s Tower 4 should be built while 2 and 3 shouldn’t move up to skyscraper status until there’s a market to handle the office space Downtown.
In a statement issued Monday, the Port Authority says its "responsibility is to focus public resources on the projects that have the most public benefit, meaning keeping the memorial and other public projects moving forward and building office space and retail to meet the market." Further, the statement asserts that Silverstein Properties’ "responsibility is to privately finance and build three towers."
For its part, Silverstein’s World Trade Center Properties says via Lieber that fully developing the site called Ground Zero is "essential so that Downtown can re-emerge as an economic powerhouse for New York City." Speaking to the 2006 agreement, Lieber adds that the Port Authority "received more than $2 billion out of the rebuilding fund based on their promise to cooperate in executing that exact vision. Now, with 10,000 construction workers standing ready to get to work, there is absolutely no reason for turning our backs on the promises."
In 2006, Silverstein signed over development rights for Tower 5--to be built on the site of the former Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty St.--as well as One World Trade Center, also called the Freedom Tower, to the Port Authority. The latest plans for the 130 Liberty site were revealed in June 2007, when JPMorgan Chase said it would develop a new world headquarters there. But when Chase bought Bear Stearns in 2008 following Bear’s collapse, the bank reportedly began seriously considering moving its investment-banking unit to 383 Madison Ave.
Tower 5--the building planned for the 130 Liberty site where the Deutsche Bank building has been under de-construction since March 2007--has been scrapped for the foreseeable future.

STT757

May 12th, 2009, 10:26 AM

I find it unbelievable that with all the insurance proceeds, liberty bonds, etc; he still can't put anything above ground. If the PA never took control of the Freedom Tower, would anything be rising from this money pit?

Exactly, for everyone's belly aching about the Port Authority they're the only one's doing anything. They cleared the site, they rebuilt, the PATH station, built another temporary station. Fixed the slurry walls, and have One World Trade Center above street level. And the best thing to come out of the whole World Trade Center redevelopment is the Calavatrava PATH hub, this design selection was entirely the Port Authority's decision with no input from focus groups or the LMDC etc..

The Original World Trade Center was not built all at once, Seven World Trade Center was opened for business in 1987 (almost 15 years after the other buildings).

Sitting in traffic on the Staten Island Expressway last night surrounded by trucks hauling shipping containers it dawned on me, all the money the Port Authority is putting into building office buildings in Lower Manhattan would be better spent building the Cross Harbor Freight rail tunnel from Jersey City to Brooklyn. That would benefit more people than fancy office towers in Manhattan ever would, get those trucks off the freaking highways. The highest asthma cases amongst children in the City are near the George Washington Bridge, it's the trucks.

Let the Port Authority build tunnels and bridges, that's their charter. Let the Trumps, Ratners, Silversteins build office buildings.

aural iNK

May 12th, 2009, 10:52 AM

I still don't understand how these stumps can be cost effective. Isn't the first floor of a tower much more expensive to build than a floor near the top? Also, I would think a floor near the top would generate a lot more revenue in regards to rent.

So by completing only the foundation, below grade floors, and a 4 story podium, wouldn't they be spending a large portion of what it would cost to complete the entire tower? Once you build the base, I would think the tower would be relatively inexpensive to complete, and would generate the highest amount of revenue.

It was for these same reasons that I could never see 8 Spruce St. being capped at 40 floors. You've already spent the money, why lose half of your potential income?

TallGuy

May 12th, 2009, 04:00 PM

and that is why the twin towers should have been rebuilt in some form from the get go. They could have almost been completed by now. Mess with the formula, and this is what you get.

Daquan13

May 12th, 2009, 04:05 PM

In any case, the PA MUST follow through and keep their end of the bargain.

No slacking off, no reneging, no eliminating any of the planned towers, and no getting out of it. It's a done deal and it WILL follow though as once visioned by Daniel Libeskind.

The presently revised plan, that is. Take THAT, PA and just deal with it. Get over it. :p

Daquan13

May 12th, 2009, 04:20 PM

To rebuild the original twin towers would be like re-opening the old wounds that might still be on the mend. Which is why they were headed off at the pass before anyone could try to set the wheels in motion for them to come back.

Also, they would be even harder to fill up than the first time. :(

scumonkey

May 12th, 2009, 04:21 PM

and that is why the twin towers should have been rebuilt in some form from the get go. They could have almost been completed by now. Mess with the formula, and this is what you get.
Pa- lezzzz- what a load- no matter what was chosen to be rebuilt, we would still be in the same mess-
Once the PA (or any other NY government agency) gets involved, you can be sure of two things-
the money will run out, and it will always be a never ending fiasco of lateness, redrafts, and major disappointment.:cool:

brianac

May 12th, 2009, 06:55 PM

The Perils of Public-Private (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/perils-public-private)

By Eliot Brown (http://www.observer.com/author/eliot-brown/)
May 12, 2009 | 6:03 p.m

http://www.observer.com/files/full/c_brownwtc_1H.jpg
Mayor Bloomberg has called a summit at Gracie Mansion this week on the World Trade Center impasse.

Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Paterson, the Port Authority, developer Larry Silverstein and a list of other top officials are slated to convene in a summit at Gracie Mansion this week to discuss a familiar subject. As done after Sept. 11, 2001, and then again in 2006, the redevelopment of the World Trade Center is being renegotiated, this time with Mr. Silverstein seeking public sector financing to help build two of his three planned office towers at the site.

Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority are at an impasse—one that is being driven by the inability to privately finance office towers in an inclement economy, and one that, if unresolved, threatens to derail numerous components of the site given its interdependent physical structure.

The imbroglio downtown brings into glaring view a flaw common to public-private development deals in New York, a city where progress on large-scale projects so often proves elusive. Struck in strong economic times under aggressive assumptions, agreements on large government-administrated developments almost inevitably falter when the economy shifts, causing private developers to petition the public sector for new concessions or subsidies to keep the deals alive. The result is a system in which large projects seem to rarely provide the public with the value initially advertised, at least not within the time frame once imagined.

While the World Trade Center is by all measures an extreme example, with a host of other factors contributing to the mess, this pattern appears again and again in a glance at some of the city’s largest real estate projects on public land in recent years.

In Brooklyn, at the imperiled $4 billion Atlantic Yards project, developer Forest City Ratner is negotiating with a host of agencies to delay or decrease its hundreds of millions in obligations to the public sector, as the viability of the project is now threatened. In February, the economic crisis led the Related Companies to delay signing a contract for a planned $15 billion development on the West Side rail yards, pushing off the start of what would ultimately be about $1 billion in rent payments to the M.T.A., which owns the property. The Yankees and the Mets received approval for additional tax-free bonds in January to finish their new stadiums, which had risen in cost.

And, looking further back, it took more than a decade to ultimately approve and build the Time Warner Center on the former Coliseum site, as the original designated developer, Boston Properties, repeatedly tried to renegotiate its contract amid a downturn.

Certainly, much of the tendency to renegotiate is owed to an inherently sluggish structure on the public sector side. The deals are often launched when the economy is strong; bidding documents take months to prepare; environmental review and approvals can take years. Restrictions and requirements are tacked on throughout what is often a heavily political process, so by the time a developer is nearly ready to build, the margins can be thinner and the economy may well have turned sour.

Seth Pinsky, president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, said his agency has numerous projects in the pipeline that developers have come back to renegotiate in recent months.

“The first thing we hear is, ‘We want to still be the developer of the project, but we can’t do it when we promised, and we can’t do it for the amount of money we promised,’” he said.

In response, the city’s position, Mr. Pinsky said, has generally been an openness to spreading out a developer’s obligations over a longer period of time, but not decreasing the amount the developer ultimately owes.

“Everyone likes the idea of someone else paying for a project, and therefore in the general public, public-private partnerships have gotten a fairly good reputation,” he said. “But when you’re not spending the money and you’re relying on a partner, it’s inevitable that you give up a certain amount of leverage.

Mr. Pinsky said the city tends to structure its deals to require significant investment up front, giving the city leverage and making it expensive for a developer to abandon a project when the environment changes.

“We’re still moving projects forward,” he said. “It’s so costly for these developers to back out of the deals, they have an incentive to negotiate with us.”

THE CASE OF the World Trade Center is an extraordinary one that is far more complex than the typical deal undertaken by the state or the city. Not only was the economic structure of the agreement built on highly aggressive assumptions—about 7 million square feet of office space, including two towers with no tenants at all, was slated to hit the downtown market at the same time—but the physical structure of the deal is proving highly problematic as well. (Silverstein Properties has put much of the blame for its financing troubles on the Port Authority’s delays at the site, though lending has been tight for well over a year.)

From 80 feet underground to the first few floors of the towers, the Port Authority and Mr. Silverstein are dependent upon each other for completing the project. And if they do not, the entire 16-acre site could cease to function as planned, as common infrastructure like an underground roadway and ventilation would not work unless the entire site is finished at least up to street level.

Thus with the Port Authority dependent on Mr. Silverstein for its own portions of the site to function, Mr. Silverstein has a very strong hand in negotiations—a position that is driving much of the current stalemate. An impasse in the renegotiation of a more typical public development project simply would mean the government might not take in money from the private developer in scheduled payments. Here, impasse threatens delays on crucial elements of the Port Authority’s portion of the site—such as the PATH hub and bus parking—on top of the lack of payments.

Just how much the Port Authority and others should put in to get the site moving is the key question, with the number ranging anywhere from $1 billion to $3 billion in financial backing.

ebrown@observer.com

http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/perils-public-private

Copyright The New York Observer.

Travis

May 12th, 2009, 11:07 PM

We got conceptual renderings for buildings 2 & 3. Can anybody state with absolute certainty that these projects ever started the design development phase, let alone finished it?

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/11/british-architects-ground-zero

(snip)...Silverstein can in theory press ahead with the building of the Rogers and Foster towers, but in practice he is out of cash. He is down to the last $1bn (£660m) of the $4.5bn insurance money he received for the Twin Towers.

The Rogers partnership, Rogers Stirk Harbour, is still working on its design for Tower Three despite the visible slowing in activity. Foster and Partners completed its design in 2008 and is ready to go on site at any time.

Daquan13

May 12th, 2009, 11:18 PM

Didn't Silverstein ask Congress or Obama for a stimulus fund to help get the rest of Ground Zero rebuilt? :confused:

TallGuy

May 13th, 2009, 11:31 AM

Pa- lezzzz- what a load- no matter what was chosen to be rebuilt, we would still be in the same mess-
Once the PA (or any other NY government agency) gets involved, you can be sure of two things-
the money will run out, and it will always be a never ending fiasco of lateness, redrafts, and major disappointment.:cool:

I have to disagree. I am not advocating this course now. I was back in 2001-2003, and had it been decided in early 2002 to rebuild the Twins, we would have saved years of delays from not having all the silly design contests, then redesigns, etc.etc. Construction would have begun around the same time as WTC 7, and they would have been on their way to being topped off by the time this financial crisis hit. So now what we are left with is one modernized version of the original twins in WTC 1, the dissappointing Maki tower, and two stumps.

The argument for the rebuilding the twins that I espoused was more to do with rebuilding now and keeping all those cooks out of the kitchen, than with what design aesthetic is better and why. Putting it on paper is the easy part. Seeing it to completion is another. Once the debate started, the momentum to rebuild was already half spent. And we see that now.

scumonkey

May 13th, 2009, 11:56 AM

Your allowed to disagree, but your statements prove
you don't have a single clue about what is going on down there.;)
There is no way in h. e. double hockey sticks the old towers
would have EVER been rebuilt (then or now)!

Putting it on paper is the easy part.There is absolutely nothing easy about ANY part of this project.
The original plans would NOT EVER be reused... (not after seeing how the buildings came down).
No matter what (or when) you advocated it- Even if they wanted to rebuild the twins-
they would still have to have been redesigned to make them safer- opening the door for the PA
to invite as many "Cooks" into kitchen, submitting as many new improvement plans as they could- different beginning- same ending:cool:

ZippyTheChimp

May 13th, 2009, 12:07 PM

The insiders here can better answer this, but it's not just a matter of dusting off the old blueprints and start building.

First of all, the twin towers floor-to-floor height was inadequate by present day standards. And before a rebuild could have been started,there would have had to be an investigation as to why the buildings collapsed. The core would have had to be redesigned, with wider, protected stairways. The buildings would have been heavier, needing redesigned footings. New security measures would have still entered the picture.

They may have looked the same as the twin towers, but in reality, completely different buildings.

Unlike when the PA took ownership of the 16 acres and just built what they wanted, you now have the PA, Silverstein who just signed a lease a month earlier, insurance policies that were not yet finalized, and various insurance companies that would still have been reluctant to hand over the money.

There were deficiencies in the original complex. The PATH concourse was as confining as Penn Station. And half the perimeter was a dead zone. No way the PA was going to be allowed to recreate Vesey St.

Sherpa

May 13th, 2009, 01:24 PM

Well, at least (thankfully) Bush didn't simply give a no-bid contract to Cheney's Hallibuton to dick around and welsh off the taxpayer for exorbitant contract amounts like they have been doing in Iraq for the past 6 or 7 years!!!

RandySavage

May 13th, 2009, 02:25 PM

(snip)...Silverstein is down to the last $1bn (£660m) of the $4.5bn insurance money he received for the Twin Towers.

How is it possible that he has spent $3.5 billion having built nothing (assuming 7WTC was built its own insurance money)?! Where is the investigative reporting and audit? I guess it's not possible in that it's a private corporation.

Silverstein's legacy could have been the man that cut threw the red tape and rebuilt the WTC. You'd think he'd really push for that being in the twilight of his life. Now he risks being remembered as just another greedy NYC developer who "can't go possibly forward" until he has milked the taxpayer for as much as possible.

Sherpa

May 13th, 2009, 02:50 PM

How is it possible that he has spent $3.5 billion having built nothing (assuming 7WTC was built its own insurance money)?! Where is the investigative reporting and audit? I guess it's not possible in that it's a private corporation.

Silverstein's legacy could have been the man that cut threw the red tape and rebuilt the WTC. You'd think he'd really push for that being in the twilight of his life. Now he risks being remembered as just another greedy NYC developer who "can't go possibly forward" until he has milked the taxpayer for as much as possible.

Click on link: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_madoff_victims_20081215.html

Open link to "Full Madoff client list"... Adobe document.

Search for "Larry A Silverstein"

:eek:

RandySavage

May 13th, 2009, 03:16 PM

^ I know that idea has been floated a couple times, but has not yet been taken seriously. Surely, if Silverstein Properties had lost the WTC settlement/rebuilding funds in the Madoff scam it would be on the cover of Time, Newsweek, NYMagazine, etc., by now.

I think a more likely scenario is that the WTC settlement went into the company's overall development pool and helped finance things like Silver Towers, 7WTC, other projects, paid for the architects fees, etc.. And if someone like Silverstein smells an opportunity to get free money from the government, it's to his advantage to make it appear that there is little or no money left for rebuilding.

Daquan13

May 13th, 2009, 04:39 PM

It's truly amazing how some are still relishing and quivling over what was there before, to by some frivelously remote and obscure chance that the same 2 structures should've would've or could've been rebuilt there instead of the present plan.

Guess what? Should'a, would'a, could'a. That plan has been killed even while Ground Zero was being mopped up after the Twins fell.

And even if that was the case, we'd still, to this very day, be waiting for construction to start on them becaue they are not wanted any more. :( :o

Alonzo-ny

May 13th, 2009, 05:25 PM

Can you stop pushing the Madoff angle already, its ridiculous.

Sherpa

May 13th, 2009, 05:46 PM

Can you stop pushing the Madoff angle already, its ridiculous.

His losses are undisclosed. Could be a little, could be a lot.

Daquan13

May 13th, 2009, 05:58 PM

His losses are undisclosed. Could be a little, could be a lot.

I'm over all that.

Yes, I used to whine, cry and want the old towers rebuilt myself, but I've long since come to the realization that the officials are not looking back that way. I was also told to get over it. And you know what? I HAVE.

So it matters none to me what gets built there, even if it were the Twins, as long as the land gets rebuilt. :rolleyes:

TallGuy

May 14th, 2009, 03:10 AM

Just to clarify my original support of rebuilding the twins and why I believe in retrospect that still was the best course. I am not an architect but I realize structural changes would have to be made to update and make the structures safer.

What I am is a sales and marketing manager, and as such I have an understanding as to how big projects need to be sold and pushed through, both through the end customer and also within my organization which will be required to invest engineering time, tooling investments etc. (if any of you have used a 3G device in Manhattan, then you are using infrastructure I sold to one of the major telecoms that helps the signal pass around large structures such as skyscrapers).

Rebuilding was a difficult question at the time and still is, and if you supported it at the time the simplist and most recognized design was the best form in which to sell to all sides and push through the process: two identical rectangular forms. Doesn't matter what's inside; you just sell and market the two identical rectangles.

'But what if we...'

'Eh! Eh!! This is about rebuilding, not an aesthetics excersize or other type of wish list.'

You either sell rebuilding the Twins or you don't, but keeping it SIMPLE moves and expedites the process along. Once we got away from that concept, it became a slippery slope and a lost cause. It required leadership and salesmanship.

I realize the debate is over, and those who wanted the public debate because it was warm and fuzzy and democratic, or if you just wanted a new design, well you got it:1/2 of a redesigned and rebuilt twin towers, and many years too late. An outcome completely predictable from the outset. And somehow THAT is stubbornly defended as superior?

ZippyTheChimp

May 14th, 2009, 07:00 AM

Rebuilding was a difficult question at the time and still is, and if you supported it at the time the simplist and most recognized design was the best form in which to sell to all sides and push through the process: two identical rectangular forms. Doesn't matter what's inside; you just sell and market the two identical rectangles.In some ways, the world of 40 years ago was better than today; in other ways, it was worse. Reviving a "familiar" design doesn't change the process.

Imagine preparing federal and state environmental impact statements for buildings still under question as to their safety. The 09/11 Commission report, itself a subject of controversy, would have had to be folded into the EIS. You would not have been able to "push through" that design any more than another. It might even have been at a disadvantage.

'Eh! Eh!! This is about rebuilding, not an aesthetics excersize or other type of wish list.'

You either sell rebuilding the Twins or you don't, but keeping it SIMPLE moves and expedites the process along.Aesthetics was rarely the cause of delays. It was about money.

Silverstein didn't balk at building the original FT because he disliked the design; it was about money. The PATH complex wasn't redesigned because of aesthetics; it was about money. Same for the memorial.

When you talk about "selling" the rebuilding, you mean selling it to the public. But the public you refer to is only interested in aesthetics. The public that actually has a voice ismore interested in functionality.

And neither group is much concerned with the real cause of delays - money.

NYatKNIGHT

May 14th, 2009, 09:17 AM

Either way, they would have faced much of the same obstacles and logistical problems: clearing the site to bedrock while searching for remains, shoring up the bathtub walls, designing all the new structures, rebuilding the train station and subway, digging foundations among operating PATH tracks, building with thousands of commuters within the construction zone, rebuilding an underground mall and link to the Wintergarden. Would Deutsche Bank still be standing as it is and causing delays along the southern portions of the site? There would still have been some sort of large memorial. There would surely have been changes and improvements to the rest of the site since everyone knew it wasn't perfect before. There would still have been big, fat contracts that keep paying no matter how slow the rate of construction is, or how many errors or delays are made. Nobody can say for sure that the process would be further along today had they chosen to rebuild similar looking twin towers.

Daquan13

May 14th, 2009, 09:39 AM

I think that if the WTC was not attacked and destroyed, that the Deuchie Bank Building more that likely would have gotten a facelift. That is, it probably would have been given a new facade.

Like the Verizon Building has gotten. :D

JohnFlint1985

May 14th, 2009, 11:00 AM

Does anyone know any news how the talks about the future of tower 2 and 3 in the WTC are going? There are speculations that both are going to be canceled due to the lack of funds.

Daquan13

May 14th, 2009, 11:09 AM

No, but........,

That more than likely won't happen. It might be delayed further, but I doubt seriously that the PA can use this bullcrap theory as a cop-out and try to get away with it. :p

Ed007Toronto

May 14th, 2009, 11:14 AM

Daquan13

May 14th, 2009, 11:37 AM

Isn't he paying something like 80 million a month in lease payments to the PA? That's got to be cutting into his cash reserves since he's certainly not getting that much in rent from WTC7

Probably only from 7 WTC because tenants are in that building.

No doubt, that kind of dough IS eating away at his assests. I've always thought that the PA should give him a break, since Ground Zero has no tenants yet, and no money coming in except from 7 WTC.

brianac

May 14th, 2009, 02:40 PM

Keep clear on Sunday.

Rescue Drill at Ground Zero on Sunday

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 13, 2009

Hundreds of emergency responders will stage an emergency drill this weekend at ground zero.

The drill, which will take place on Sunday morning, will simulate a response to an explosion at a PATH commuter rail train in the tunnel between the World Trade Center site and northern New Jersey.

Officials say there will be no sound of an explosion, but emergency vehicles will respond with flashing lights and sirens.

More than 800 responders will participate from the New York City Police and Fire Departments and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/port_authority_of_new_york_and_new_jersey/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

The Port Authority says Vesey Street, on the north side of ground zero, will be closed to all but emergency vehicles. PATH rail service will be suspended from 6 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

The drill is expected to last about two hours.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/nyregion/14drill.html?ref=nyregion (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/nyregion/14drill.html?ref=nyregion)

Copyright 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

brianac

May 14th, 2009, 02:57 PM

May 14, 2009 12:57 PM

Silverstein facing uphill struggle downtown

Port Authority digs in its heels; the agency will finance one building at the World Trade Center but wants one of Silverstein's plots on the site in return.

By Theresa Agovino (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/personalia?ID=123)

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CN&Date=20090514&Category=FREE&ArtNo=905149986&Ref=AR&maxw=319&border=0Photo by Buck Ennis

The Port Authority is demanding that developer Larry Silverstein give it one of the plots for his three planned towers at the World Trade Center site in exchange for helping to finance construction of one his buildings, sources say. To win its aid, the agency is also telling Mr. Silverstein to exercise a lease option that would lock New York City into renting 600,000 square feet in the building that it may back or alternatively, to find another tenant.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Mr. Silverstein have clashed over funding the developer’s towers and their feud threatens to impede building progress on the site. Mr. Silverstein has asked the Port to help fund two of his three towers but the agency has said it will only consider one because aiding more than that would hurt its balance sheet and put public money at risk in a private, speculative real estate development.

Complete article HERE (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090514/FREE/905149986)

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090514/FREE/905149986#

© 2009 Crain Communications, Inc.

DMAG

May 14th, 2009, 06:09 PM

When they say "one tower" I assume they are referring to #4 and not #2 or #3?

Daquan13

May 14th, 2009, 08:47 PM

I believe that is correct. :o

JSsocal

May 15th, 2009, 12:26 AM

^^^I think they are actually talking about tower 3.
From the article:
"Additionally, the Port has told Mr. Silverstein it wants to take control of the site where he would build what is referred to as Tower 3 so that it can build a squat structure that would house retail tenants. It would give Mr. Silverstein the option of building an office tower or hotel over the stump when the market improves."

Just makes me so angry...:mad:

Travis

May 15th, 2009, 02:23 AM

So instead of helping to finance it they are saying, "you still have to build it but now we're making it much more complicated and expensive for you to do when you get around to it."

Way to totally miss the point Port Authority.

Derek2k3

May 15th, 2009, 03:11 AM

No, the PA will finance Tower 2 if he hands over Tower 3 temporarily and locks in the city as a tenant for Tower 4. The Port Authority is basically bending over backwards for Silverstein.

Daquan13

May 15th, 2009, 11:05 AM

Seems the PA has been CREATING more problems than trying to solve them.

A deal was reached around the time that the Freedom Tower started being built, and the PA went along with it. Now they've switched gears again and started more friggen controversy - Again!!!

They need to stop this crap and try to work WITH Silverstein, not AGAINST him!! :mad:

Citytect

May 16th, 2009, 11:58 PM

No, the PA will finance Tower 2 if he hands over Tower 3 temporarily and locks in the city as a tenant for Tower 4. The Port Authority is basically bending over backwards for Silverstein.

I completely agree. Silverstein has no non-government tenants for any of his three towers and will not be able to find financing to complete the two towers not yet under construction. So he's asking the PA to tie up public funds by financing a few million square feet of his unleased office space. Of course the PA is going to ask for concessions. If they didn't I'd be worried. And don't get me wrong, I want to see the WTC completed as much as the next person, but the public sector should not be shouldering all the risk here.

I don't like the sound of having a stump at site 3 (it was my favorite tower after all), but it's looking more and more like a lost cause trying to build all four towers at once. I'll accept three of the four for now.

Daquan13

May 17th, 2009, 03:46 AM

No, the PA will finance Tower 2 if he hands over Tower 3 temporarily and locks in the city as a tenant for Tower 4. The Port Authority is basically bending over backwards for Silverstein.

But as of late, I don't think they've been doing too much bending over backwards! I think that they are trying to snow everyone. Again!! :mad:

Sherpa

May 18th, 2009, 10:22 PM

May 14 - Daniel Libeskind, architect of the WTC site, was chosen as master planner for a $20 billion project to transform the capitol of South Korea. The plan is to change Seoul into an international business district with skyscrapers, residential, office and retail space as well as cultural and educational facilities and a rapid transit system.

Daquan13

May 18th, 2009, 10:51 PM

Wonder if he'll be fighting with anyone over there about how the spire will be placed on the building, if there is going to be one. Haha!! (Daquan13 sticks out tongue). :p

Alonzo-ny

May 19th, 2009, 11:48 AM

Relevance?

Sherpa

May 19th, 2009, 03:05 PM

:rolleyes:Very relevant. also time will tell. ... (comparatively speaking of course)

Alonzo-ny

May 19th, 2009, 03:31 PM

No its not relevant. Shall we post every project every architect is involved in in every thread?

Daquan13

May 19th, 2009, 03:42 PM

:rolleyes:Very relevant. also time will tell. ... (comparatively speaking of course)

Your're right, Sherpa!

Since we're on the subject of Daniel Libeskind, even though he's been paid off and sent on his way, he STILL manages to show up to Ground Zero when an event takes place, as though he still has input.:p

Sherpa

May 19th, 2009, 03:47 PM

No its not relevant. Shall we post every project every architect is involved in in every thread?

I have my opinion, you have yours.

Alonzo-ny

May 19th, 2009, 03:49 PM

No, its off topic to post about a project in Korea that has no relevance to the WTC other than its the same architect. Please explain how it affects the WTC in any way, shape or form.

Daquan13

May 19th, 2009, 03:52 PM

Well, for one, Libeskind is not exactly the easiest one to get along with.

How many posts did YOU make that were OT? Quite a few, I'm sure.

Sherpa

May 19th, 2009, 05:11 PM

No, its off topic to post about a project in Korea that has no relevance to the WTC other than its the same architect. Please explain how it affects the WTC in any way, shape or form.

you said it... "same architect."

also, take a look back at page one of this thread. Lebiskind's name appears everywhere... from the first post onwards.

scumonkey

May 19th, 2009, 06:06 PM

From Crains NY:
May 19, 2009 3:31 PM
Civic groups back Port Authority in WTC battle

In an open letter, they argue the agency should halt financing at just one World Trade Center building.
By Theresa Agovino (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/personalia?ID=123)
Several community groups and nonprofits told political leaders that they support using public funds to back only one private office tower on the World Trade Center. The news comes just two days before a meeting planned to end an impasse over the development.
The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and Larry Silverstein have been warring over the financing of the developer’s three planned towers, a conflict which threatens further progress on the site. Mr. Silverstein wants the Port to back two of his towers; but the agency has only offered to help with only one, arguing that aiding more would hurt its balance sheet and push it into a risky, private real estate venture.
In letters to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York’s Gov. David Paterson and New Jersey’s Gov. Jon Corzine, the groups say they only want the Port to finance one tower. The mayor is hosting Thursday’s meeting to end the logjam.
“With limited funds for redevelopment, the financial resources of the Port Authority should be devoted to restoring the public infrastructure to the site,” said a letter from The Regional Planning Association’s chairman, Peter Herman, and its president, Robert Yaro.
The letter also said that retail development would “better respond to market conditions and generate profits and tax revenues.” The Port has said it wanted to build two multi-story retail pedestals where Mr. Silverstein’s buildings are supposed to rise, and the letter said that option should be fully evaluated.
A separate letter signed by seven groups, including the Regional Planning Association, reiterated that no additional public funds should be used to subsidize office construction. It also said such funds should instead go toward transportation and infrastructure.
The other groups that signed the second letter were: Fiscal Policy Institute, Pratt Center for Community Development, NYPIRG/Straphangers Campaign, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Transportation Alternatives and the New York Metro Chapter of the American Planning Association.
Mr. Silverstein’s spokesman didn’t immediately return a call. In a statement, a Port Authority spokesman said, "We agree with the principle that the Port Authority's public resources should go toward keeping the projects with the most public benefit moving forward."
In the deal on the table, sources say the Port is demanding that Mr. Silverstein give it one of the plots for his three planned towers at the World Trade Center site in exchange for helping to finance construction of one his buildings.
Sources say the Port also wants Mr. Silverstein to hand over part of his insurance money to help build the common infrastructure for the site. In return, the Port would build Mr. Silverstein’s infrastructure, stop his rent payments and give him the financing he desperately needs—a deal the agency values at $1.2 billion, these people say.
But other sources familiar with the project say the Port is essentially confiscating Mr. Silverstein’s development rights for Tower 3 without compensation. One person familiar with the situation notes that the agency would require Mr. Silverstein to surrender all penalties the Port has paid for missing deadlines—about $100 million to date—and to waive the right to any future fines.
These people add that the Port is only willing to backstop the debt payments on the one tower for 10 years, which could make financing very difficult to find. They add that building one tower won’t create the critical mass necessary to lure tenants and retailers to the site.
The Port declined to comment on the negotiations. In a statement last week, Janno Lieber, president of World Trade Center Properties, said that the company has already made numerous compromises on the site and that the proposal to build two towers is fair, especially since at one point the developer was supposed to construct five. Moreover, the Port has collected more than $2 billion in payments from Mr. Silverstein.
“As well as employing tens of thousands of workers, completing two buildings will assure that the WTC site is a finished, attractive and exciting place that helps, rather than hinders downtown's revival,” said Mr. Lieber. “That's what New Yorkers have been promised throughout the past eight years.”

Daquan13

May 19th, 2009, 06:09 PM

I think I read a post that says Libeskind plans to build a tower somewhere out in California.

Daquan13

May 19th, 2009, 06:22 PM

Corrected it.

I've come to the realization that the only buildings we'll probably see built are the Freedom Tower and possibly Tower 4!

The rest, I'm not sure about, but this has got to stop!! :mad:

Alonzo-ny

May 20th, 2009, 11:57 AM

Sherpa, Libeskind is doing many projects all over the world. Should I post about his mall in Switzerland? No, because it doesnt have anything to do with the WTC. Im just talking to a wall with you. Stop wasting our time.

BrooklynRider

May 20th, 2009, 12:11 PM

May 20, 2009

Groups Seek to Stop Public Financing of New Towers at Ground Zero
By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Some of the city’s largest civic groups jumped into the simmering dispute at ground zero on Tuesday, saying that government should improve transportation networks downtown and not put any more money into the development of speculative office towers on the 16-acre site.

Their call addresses an impasse between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the World Trade Center site, and the developer, Larry A. Silverstein, who is to build three skyscrapers there. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has asked that the governors of New York and New Jersey, the authority and Mr. Silverstein meet with him at Gracie Mansion on Thursday to resolve the latest dispute in the long and tortured effort to rebuild the trade center.

Seven civic groups, including the Regional Plan Association, the Fiscal Policy Institute and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, called on the mayor and the governors to ensure “that no additional public funds are used to subsidize office construction on the site.” The funds are needed more, the groups said, for the $3.2 billion transportation hub there and a new passenger rail tunnel under the Hudson River.

“These investments will support new commercial activity,” the civic groups said in a letter to the officials, “but it is the responsibility of the private sector to absorb the risk of new construction.”

Unable to obtain financing for the towers, Mr. Silverstein has asked the Port Authority to guarantee more than $3 billion in loans he needs to erect at least two of the towers along Church Street between Vesey and Liberty Streets. The authority, which is already building a large tower at the northwest corner of the site, balked.

At a time when office rents are falling and vacancies rising downtown, it did not want to become involved with more speculative office space, especially now that its own capital budget is threatened by sharply falling bridge and tunnel revenue.

In a move that infuriated Mr. Silverstein, the authority offered to back only one of his towers, with about $800 million. The authority said it would help build Mr. Silverstein’s other two towers in the coming decades once demand for new office space increases, although the developer was free to move ahead at any time with private financing.

Janno Lieber, who oversees the trade center project for Mr. Silverstein, said Tuesday in a statement: “If, as the Port Authority apparently believes, the New York regional economy is permanently dead and buried, it’s hard to see how they can justify huge investments in the World Trade Center PATH hub, new tunnels, and other facilities designed to serve expanded commuter populations.”

Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the authority, countered that it made more sense for the authority to “put its limited public resources toward keeping the memorial and the public projects moving forward,” while building the office and retail components when there is demand for new space.

The two sides have not had any substantive talks in more than a month. On May 8, the speaker of the State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, whose district includes downtown, called on the authority to help Mr. Silverstein begin construction on two of his towers. But Mr. Silver also said Mr. Silverstein must invest some of his own money if he is to reap the profits from the buildings.

Mayor Bloomberg immediately endorsed Mr. Silver’s initiative and asked all the parties to meet at Grace Mansion within a week, a move that took Mr. Silverstein, the authority and even Gov. David A. Paterson by surprise. Most of the participants said on Tuesday they were unsure what the meeting would achieve.

Andrew Brent, a spokesman for the mayor, said, “If the stalemate between the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties ends where it’s headed — in litigation or arbitration — everyone loses,” and added, “We are convening the parties on Thursday to arrive at a path toward resolution that maintains progress on the site.”

The governor wants the project to continue to make progress, said a spokeswoman, Erin Duggan, but believes that “the public should not be the ones taking on all of the risk for private development.”

Sherpa

May 20th, 2009, 04:11 PM

Alonzo-ny

May 20th, 2009, 04:13 PM

If I were to post it it would be in an appropriate thread, not this one. This line of discussion is over.

Sherpa

May 20th, 2009, 04:14 PM

http://www.bustler.net/index.php/article/libeskind_wins_20b_seoul_master_plan_competition/

Daquan13

May 20th, 2009, 07:04 PM

Looks like the rendering of another "Shards of Glass" complex.

Yep, The Attack of the Monolith Monsters! :p

Travis

May 21st, 2009, 01:12 PM

NEW GLIMPSE OF WTC LOW-RISE COMPROMISE

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212009/photos/world_trade_center.jpg
SHORT AND SWEET: Artists' renderings show plans for six-story retail buildings at 2 World Trade Center (above) and 3 World Trade Center (below).

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212009/news/regionalnews/new_glimpse_of_wtc_low_rise_compromise_170311.htm

By TOM TOPOUSIS
May 21, 2009

Here's the first look at a scaled-down World Trade Center -- with retail shops replacing two of the site's towers, under a new design the Port Authority will present at a summit today with Mayor Bloomberg and the governors of New York and New Jersey.

The gleaming glass and steel retail podiums would rise six stories above street level at World Trade Center sites where Larry Silverstein wants to build two enormous office towers, one of which would soar nearly as high as the Empire State Building.

Fearful that Silverstein won't be able to finance construction of the towers during a recession, PA officials are pushing for a temporary plan to create retail podiums between Church and Greenwich streets to fill the space and restore the streetscape.

Renderings of the proposal have been quietly circulating among some downtown officials and were obtained by The Post yesterday.

The retail podiums would anchor as much as 600,000 square feet of shopping space that would extend below street level into every WTC building and through the massive Calatrava transit hub.

By building podiums in place of towers, PA officials expect to increase the amount of retail space from the currently planned 500,000 square feet -- roughly what existed in the World Trade Center before 9/11..[snip]

Daquan13

May 21st, 2009, 03:56 PM

Why don't they just make Tower 4 another Freedom Tower without the spire, make a 25-story hotel for Tower 5 and call it a day? :(

Sherpa

May 21st, 2009, 04:13 PM

Don't those stumps look eerie? Like the scenes soon after 9/11 when parts of the towers still stood. this would be a huge mistake. Build expansive parkland wrapping around the Calatrava hub building I say!

JSsocal

May 21st, 2009, 04:14 PM

Daquan...
1. It would look very awkward, and not have the same relationship as the original twins had
2. A second "FT" probably couldn't fit, if you want to keep Greenwich Street that is

Daquan13

May 21st, 2009, 04:56 PM

Daquan...
1. It would look very awkward, and not have the same relationship as the original twins had
2. A second "FT" probably couldn't fit, if you want to keep Greenwich Street that is

Yes Sherpa you're so right, they DO - especially the one in the top pic!

JSssocal, why not? After all, what else can they themselves come up with that doesn't fit?

We've seen just about everything, and just when we thought we'd seen it all, now THIS! Those towers are beautiful! Why they want to replace them with some cheap and flimsy low-end ugly 09-11 look-alike shards that look like they're leftover remains from the terror attacks is beyond me!!

They should STILL leave the options there to build the planned towers when the economy gets better!:mad:

meesalikeu

May 21st, 2009, 05:28 PM

hey, as long as these new malls have a dippin dots stand, i am down with it.

a what what? :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dippin%27_Dots

Daquan13

May 22nd, 2009, 12:57 AM

Then again, some are only looking at it from their stomachs' point of view.

DMAG

May 22nd, 2009, 01:52 PM

TOWERS OF POWER SET TO CRAFT A WTC DEAL

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05222009/photos/building_a_blueprint.jpg

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05222009/news/regionalnews/towers_of_power_set_to_craft_a_wtc_deal_170464.htm

By TOM TOPOUSIS

Redevelopment of the World Trade Center site took a big step forward yesterday as all the key players agreed at a summit conference to a three-week deadline for hammering out a compromise.
"We cannot allow this to not get done," Mayor Bloomberg said after the closed-door meeting, adding, "It is intolerable to leave this hole in the ground."
Bloomberg organized the summit at Gracie Mansion in a bid to break the stalemate between the Port Authority and developer Larry Silverstein over how many towers the bistate agency is willing to help finance.
The summit invitees, including Silverstein, Gov. Paterson, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (http://www.nypost.com/topics/topic.php?t=Jon_Corzine), Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (http://www.nypost.com/topics/topic.php?t=Sheldon_Silver) and PA officials, agreed to order their aides to come up with an agreement by the next summit on June 11. (more at link above)

HoveringCheesecake

May 22nd, 2009, 02:14 PM

I'm glad Bloomberg stepped up and had this summit. At least now we'll know what is going to happen. *knock on wood*

My guess is: Tower 2 & 4 built in full. Tower 3 plot either being left alone or as a stump (:() with the possibility of an increase in height in the future - ascending spiral be damned. I also wouldn't be surprised if we saw some changes with the Transportation Hub.

One thing that I've been wondering about, and maybe someone with the plans or who works with Silver can answer: where are the HVAC units going on Tower 2 now that it won't be cooled using the Hudson cooling plant as originally planned? There was an article a few weeks back stating that only Tower 1 and the Memorial would use the river for that purpose and that the HVAC stuff for 2 and 3 would have to be redesigned. It can't go on the roof of 2 with the current design, so I hope they figure something out without cutting the diamond down.

Daquan13

May 22nd, 2009, 11:18 PM

I'm almost certain that they'll have one or more of the floors reserved for HVAC units.

BrooklynRider

May 23rd, 2009, 12:47 AM

There's a rendering of a "West Thames Street Pedestrian Bridge" on the SHoP website. I'm not sure how to grab the rendering, but it can be found HERE (http://www.shoparc.com/#/projects/type) under "infrastructure." It says it will be the permanent replacement for the Rector Street Bridge. I really like this design.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

philvia

May 23rd, 2009, 01:31 AM

i see no reason to replace the rector st pedestrian bridge...

DMAG

May 23rd, 2009, 09:32 AM

TonyO

May 23rd, 2009, 10:34 AM

WSJ
Editorial

Saying Goodbye to Ground Zero

By BRET STEPHENS

In just a few weeks, The Wall Street Journal, for more than 20 years headquartered at 200 Liberty Street in lower Manhattan, packs its bags and decamps for new offices in midtown. For me, there will be much to miss about the old location: the small, nearly hidden, oval lawn surrounded by almond trees, right across the street; the fancy yachts and sleek racing sailboats that dock at nearby North Cove in summertime; the spectacular sunsets that bring out the sparkle of the languid Hudson River and manage to make Jersey City look almost beckoning.

All that, however, is to the west of our building. To the east is the 16-acre pit of Ground Zero. It's a sight I won't miss at all.

For nearly five years, I have looked into that pit most every working day, both from the street level and from our offices about 150 feet above it. Five years ago, after the site had been cleared of debris but before most of the reconstruction work had begun, Ground Zero still meant just two things: outrage and defiance.

Back then, too, my memories were still fresh of what had been there before 9/11, when I'd first gone to work for the Journal in the 1990s before moving overseas: not just the Twin Towers but the gym I belonged to on the top floor of the Marriott hotel; and the Krispy Kreme donut shop that was my preferred post-workout/pre-work destination; and the little shoe repair place in the Trade Center's mall; and the DHL counter in the lobby of the South Tower, from which I had overnighted my Master's thesis to London just in time to meet the deadline.

Back then, in other words, my emotional connection to Ground Zero was a combination of nostalgia and sadness. Also, expectation: I liked Daniel Libeskind's original design for the new World Trade Center site, with its five new towers all sharing a shard-like look that gave the whole a sense of common origin and purpose, and I looked forward to seeing them built with a sense of urgency. This was a national project, after all, a gigantic rebuke to terrorists in the form of steel and glass and one that did not require the assent of the United Nations Security Council or the pliancy of the proverbial Arab street. If my grandfathers' generation could build the Empire State Building in 14 months flat, how much longer could it possibly take, using modern methods, to build at least one of Mr. Libeskind's towers?

Today, by contrast, my emotional connection to Ground Zero mainly involves disillusion. Disillusion with the new smorgasbord design that replaced Mr. Libeskind's, the various elements of which are testaments to the egotism of their several rock-star architects. Disillusion with the endless bickering between developer Larry Silverstein, the city and state of New York, the Port Authority, and the rest of the "stakeholders," real or self-styled, with their never-ending Demands That Must Be Met. Disillusion with the fact that today, three years after the cornerstone of the 1,776 foot Freedom Tower was laid (for a second time!), only a few steel beams rise above street level to a height of about 100 feet. Disillusion that the name "Freedom Tower" has now been dropped. Disillusion that in 2007 two firefighters, Joseph Graffagnino and Robert Beddia, died in the damaged Deutsche Bank building adjacent to Ground Zero because the Environmental Protection Agency, or whoever, wouldn't countenance the thought of simply demolishing it with a few well-placed charges of dynamite. Disillusion that it will cost more to deconstruct that squalid tower one floor at a time than it did to build it. Disillusion upon disillusion, compounded into a sense of disgust.

Yes, I know: Rebuilding the site, as various responsible officials endlessly repeat, is a "three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle." What do they suppose the Apollo missions were? It took eight years for the U.S. to go from John F. Kennedy's 1961 man-on-the-moon speech to an actual man on the moon, a distance of about 240,000 miles. At Ground Zero, it has taken about as long to move just one corner of the site from 70 feet below ground to 100 feet above. The whole endeavor is fast turning into the American version of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia, under construction since the 1880s.

At least Gaudi's cathedral is majestic in its incompleteness. And at least its incompleteness hints at some higher purposes, perhaps, or suggests that tracing patterns of a divine will takes time. At Ground Zero, there is a pit. With broad slabs of concrete and some rust-colored steel. Testifying to a society in which everyone gets their say and nothing gets done. To a system run by craven politicians and crass developers and an army of lawyers for whom gridlock is profit.

A day after 9/11, my colleague Dan Henninger wrote an account of the attacks titled "I Saw It All. Then I Saw Nothing." Today, I still see nothing. Which means, maybe, that I've seen it all.

Mr. Stephens writes the Journal's weekly Global View column. Write to bstephens@wsj.com .

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AJ530A_dgste_G_20090521152053.jpg

Bob

May 23rd, 2009, 10:51 AM

The essay by Mr. Stephens is downright brilliant. I particularly thought his comment about everybody having a say, but nothing gets done, was right on the mark.

Sherpa

May 23rd, 2009, 11:08 AM

As Gehry's 8 Spruce St - a private development- rises defiantly in the background.

ZippyTheChimp

May 23rd, 2009, 02:27 PM

i see no reason to replace the rector st pedestrian bridge...1/The Rector St bridge wasn't designed to be permanent. It's already been patched up to extend its life.

2. The east pier interferes with the sidewalk.

3. It's at the wrong place. The West Thames pedestrian crossing is busy, and because of the BBT, dangerous. It's a more logical place for a bridge.

TonyO

May 28th, 2009, 07:33 PM

Real Estate Weekly

CBRE releases downtown study that predicts strong rents for WTC buildings

Daniel Geiger
5/22/2009

Study counters competing projections by rival firm Cushman & Wakefield

While World Trade Center stakeholders gathered yesterday at the behest of Mayor Bloomberg to attempt sorting out the budding imbroglio there, developer Larry Silverstein continued to make his case for building speculative office towers – disseminating a new report that predicts his plan to deliver a soaring new skyscraper on the site by 2015 would be met by favorable market conditions.

That goes against a competing study commissioned in recent months by the Port Authority from the real estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield, which projects insufficient demand for two of the three buildings Silverstein wants to develop until 2026 and 2037.

The authority has used that analysis as a key component in rationalizing its refusal to backstop financing for the towers, a commitment Silverstein has asked the authority to make because he can’t raise the money privately due to ongoing problems in the credit markets.

Silverstein’s camp has called the authority’s study pessimistic and has expressed outrage that the Port Authority would spend billions of dollars on infrastructure on the site without helping to see the development of a substantial commercial component that could profit from it.

Coinciding with the meeting yesterday, held at Gracie Mansion and attended by the authority, Silverstein, Governor Corzine, Governor Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Silverstein’s firm emailed around the competing study, which was done by CB Richard Ellis, one of Cushman & Wakefield’s chief rivals.

The report predicts that Tower 2, a 2.5 million square foot skyscraper with a distinct slanted crown, would likely be able to net rents between $91 per square foot and $107 per square foot by 2015 and that Tower 4, a building already under construction on the south side of the site, would earn rents between $77 per square foot and $93 per square foot when it’s finished in 2013. The projections appear to make the buildings financially feasible.

The report hinges on a number of speculative factors however, including a citywide layoff projection of 225,000 workers, the impact those job cuts will have on vacancy rates, downtown’s historic discount to midtown and also the premium top tier office buildings can yield over the rest of the market.

The firm translated the layoffs into two estimates for how much space will be added to the market, projecting vacancy rates if 70 percent of the space freed up by the job cuts comes available and also if only half of it is released to the market.

CBRE’s report predicts that Manhattan vacancy would consequently bottom out in the first quarter of 2011 between 14.3 percent and 17.4 percent and that midtown rents would average then between $53 per square foot and $64 per square foot.

But trophy office towers and newly constructed, state of the art commercial properties command higher rents even during downturns the report stated, estimating the premium to be a whopping 85 percent.

Using that to calculate rates in midtown’s best buildings, CBRE then took a historical average discount of about 30 percent between midtown and downtown to arrive at what it thought the World Trade Center towers could earn. The report also factored in various state and city incentives and discounts that are offered to tenants at the WTC site.

CBRE has some interest in providing optimistic data, as it was the firm that Silverstein hired to lease 7 World Trade Center, the only tower at the site he has so far rebuilt. Silverstein also plans to use the CBRE to lease the forthcoming towers on the site that he wants to build, meaning that more buildings could lead to more business for CBRE.

So far, the Port Authority has only offered to provide increased financial support at Tower 4, a building that has been possible to finance because both the Port Authority and the city have pledged to occupy over a million square feet in the 1.8 million square foot building.

Silverstein has pledged that he wants to begin on Tower 2 and the other remaining WTC tower outlined in the site’s master plan, the 2 million square foot building known as Tower 3, but it appears he is willing to forgo the latter if the Port Authority will backstop Tower 2. So far, the Port Authority has said that it is unwilling to subject its balance sheet to the risks of building speculative office development in a market that doesn’t appear to need new space, although it has said that Silverstein can proceed whenever he is able to arrange financing on his own.

But if the authority and Silverstein can’t come to an agreement, it appears that the site could become bogged back down in delays, possibly preventing the memorial from being completed by the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and also pushing back completion of the WTC transit hub.

The Mayor’s meeting was scheduled to try to resolve the impasse. According to reports, the parties agreed to meet again next week to continue talks.

BrooklynLove

May 28th, 2009, 08:10 PM

CBRE, seriously.

In other news, AAA recently released a study showing strong demand for cars.

BrooklynRider

May 28th, 2009, 08:52 PM

Yeah, I had the same reaction: Well, isn't this report conveeeeenient!

TonyO

May 28th, 2009, 10:09 PM

Any brokerage with its skin in the game has a vested interest in painting a rosy picture. However, class A space will demand a premium when the economy improves. That's real estate 101. WTC7 is a prime example.

Daquan13

May 29th, 2009, 03:12 PM

What about Tower 5?

The report says nothing about that one. :confused:

Sherpa

May 29th, 2009, 04:22 PM

May 29 – The Port Authority board voted to shuffle money from two key projects at the WTC site to the Transportation Hub. The Daily News reported $546 million from the Vehicular Security Center (VSC) and $70 million from the Cortlandt Street station will be funneled to the Hub, whose budget has spiraled to about $3.2 billion.

Daquan13

May 29th, 2009, 05:49 PM

The Prince of Wales Prince Harry was in New York today and visited Ground Zero - stopping to pay his respects and tribute to the many victims who died there on 09-11. He was amazed at the progress of the rebuild there.

He then visited the Fire House where he also paid tribute to the many firefighters who lost their lives that day. :(

Alonzo-ny

May 29th, 2009, 06:35 PM

He isnt Prince of Wales, his father is.

Daquan13

May 29th, 2009, 06:49 PM

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Sherpa

May 29th, 2009, 08:37 PM

were they showing him the World Financial Center buildings perhaps?

lofter1

May 29th, 2009, 09:51 PM

Harry laid a wreath at the WTC site ...

BiggieSmalls

May 30th, 2009, 05:27 PM

where'd he lay the wreath? anyone see any pics?

the north and south pools are almost converged in the east should be closed up next week?

how much longer can the crawler crane stay in the pit? it looks REAL tight in there.

it looks like the memorial crew shuts down at 3PM every day. working this sat which is rare. why no sense of urgency? i assume this is a contract issue but the freedom tower guys go 6 or 7 days a week with three shirts at full boar.

lofter1

May 30th, 2009, 10:58 PM

Looks like he hung it (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30988347/) on the cyclone fence on Liberty Street near the Fire Station.

Sherpa

June 5th, 2009, 11:24 AM

Explains a lot if you think about how such illegal activity would impact actual work performed and time spent actually performing construction activities:

Contractor Bovis Lend Lease under investigation for overbilling on Citi Field, 9/11 Memorial

By Doug Feiden (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/Doug%20Feiden) and Greg B. Smith (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/Greg%20B.%20Smith)
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Friday, June 5th 2009, 2:31 AM

Prosecutors are investigating allegations of overbilling by a major contractor at the Sept.11 Memorial, Citi Field (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Citi+Field) and three other huge New York projects, the Daily News has learned.
Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Benton Campbell (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Benton+Campbell) has subpoenaed thousands of payroll and billing documents from Bovis Lend Lease (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Bovis+Lend+Lease+Inc.) for five specific projects, two sources familiar with the ongoing investigation said.
Besides the Sept. 11 museum and the new Mets (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/New+York+Mets) stadium, the other projects are the New York University Medical Center (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/NYU+Medical+Center), the demolition of the Deutsche Bank (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Deutsche+Bank+AG) tower at Ground Zero and a mall in Rego Park (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Rego+Park), Queens (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Queens+County).
A Port Authority spokesman confirmed the investigation Thursday night.
"This is an ongoing U.S. (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/United+States) attorney's investigation. Our inspector general's office is actively engaged in the investigation," said spokesman Steve Coleman (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Steve+Coleman).
The Port Authority is the construction manager of the $700 million Sept. 11 Memorial, and Bovis serves as the general contractor.
Bovis, one of the biggest contractors in America, has ordered a freeze on multiple corporate documents, including payroll records regarding overtime, time sheets and daily work tickets, one source said.
A second source said investigators were looking into allegations of inflating bills by putting in for hours not worked or adding on overtime that wasn't justified.
The investigators also want to know about the firing of a top Bovis employee, Brian Aryai (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Brian+Aryai), two sources said.
Aryai is a former U.S. Department of Treasury (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/U.S.+Department+of+the+Treasury) agent who was hired as senior vice president of finance and controller at Bovis in April 2008. He left to form his own company in January.
His job included conducting internal investigations of fraud and implementing internal controls, his Web site profile says.
Aryai could not be reached for comment.
Bovis employees were told not to "discard, delete, destroy or alter in any fashion" a laundry list of specific documents.
In an internal e-mail obtained by The News, company lawyers warned employees not to speak with the media or law enforcement officials about the investigation.
Citi Field was privately built but subsidized by the city Economic Development Corp. through tax-free bonds.
An EDC spokesman could not be reached for comment.
Bovis is the general contractor on the $274 million Deutsche Bank demolition and was criticized - but not charged with a crime - for its role in a deadly August 2007 fire that killed two city firefighters there.
The Deutsche Bank demolition is overseen by a state agency, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Lower+Manhattan+Development+Corporation) A spokesman had no comment.
Neither the Brooklyn (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Brooklyn) U.S. attorney's office nor Mary Costello (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Mary+Costello), a spokeswoman for Bovis, would comment.
With Barbara Ross and John Marzulli

Read more: "Contractor Bovis Lend Lease under investigation for overbilling on Citi Field, 9/11 Memorial" - http://www.nydailynews.com/real_estate/2009/06/04/2009-06-04_contractor_bovis_lend_lease_under_investigation _for_overbilling_on_citi_field_91.html#ixzz0HZMqQp Vp&A (http://www.nydailynews.com/real_estate/2009/06/04/2009-06-04_contractor_bovis_lend_lease_under_investigation _for_overbilling_on_citi_field_91.html#ixzz0HZMqQp Vp&A)

Daquan13

June 5th, 2009, 11:47 AM

In simple terms, what does this all mean?

There HAVE BEEN many delays and snarls, but hopefully, as far as the western half of Ground Zero goes, that should all be behind us now.

The eastern half, well, as we all know, that's a horse of a different color. :confused:

Sherpa

June 5th, 2009, 11:50 AM

In simple terms, what does this all mean?

There HAVE BEEN many delays and snarls, but hopefully, as far as the western half of Ground Zero goes, that should all be behind us now. :confused:

I interpret it to mean that there have been a bunch of construction guys appearing on the payroll records either as "Ghosts" who do no work or there have been real workers who were overpaid for b/s hours they put on their time cards and never worked. Also there may have been simple overbilling by Bovis. This is just a big boondoggle and there needs to be instilled a real sense of urgency with real controls !

Daquan13

June 5th, 2009, 12:01 PM

I interpret it to mean that there have been a bunch of construction guys appearing on the payroll records either as "Ghosts" who do no work or there have been real workers who were overpaid for b/s hours they put on their time cards and never worked. Also there may have been simple overbilling by Bovis. This is just a big boondoggle and there needs to be instilled a real sense of urgency with real controls !

Perhaps the only way that you'd know that is to go over to Ground Zero and spend a few days there just to see if there are really any slackers there just sicking around to collect a paycheck and are doing nothing.

Maybe there's a way to see if that really is the case, and have their bosses try to wean out the deadweight and make sure that there IS productivity going on there.

It might help explain why the construction project there seems so painfully slow. But I wouldn't be too sure. Even though there IS lots of activity there, it would be quite hard to see and judge just exactly who is doing what there, how much and how long.

Sherpa

June 5th, 2009, 12:10 PM

"It might help explain why the construction project there seems so painfully slow. But I wouldn't be too sure. Even though there IS lots of activity there, it would be quite hard to see and judge just exactly who is doing what there, how much and how long. "

...and that may be precisely the problem.. those who know the business of construction also know how to play the Port like a fiddle.

Daquan13

June 5th, 2009, 12:18 PM

I just want the thing finished.

The western half seems to be getting it all together, but I can't say the same for the eastern half.

Still a lot of red tape, BS, apathy and stalling tactics going on there! :mad:

STT757

June 5th, 2009, 12:50 PM

I interpret it to mean that there have been a bunch of construction guys appearing on the payroll records either as "Ghosts" who do no work

Unfortunately that means they have mobsters on the payroll, they have to have a source of legitimate income from someplace to keep the IRS off their backs. John Gotti was a "salesman" for plumbing supplies, which was nonsense.

Travis

June 6th, 2009, 03:44 AM

Intriguing.

Rebuilding Ground Zero (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/lweb05silverstein.html?_r=2)

Since 9/11, the Port Authority has received $2.75 billion out of Silverstein’s rebuilding fund based on assurances it would deliver its rebuilding projects on time. Having failed to make good on its promises, the Port Authority cannot keep those payments and also refuse to use “public money” to ensure a full rebuilding.
Finally, Silverstein is not asking the Port Authority for money. We are asking the agency to guarantee our financing, which will help us obtain construction loans that we will be obligated to repay — at the risk of losing our entire interest in the buildings.

DMAG

June 6th, 2009, 09:17 PM

Cool, the PA picked my question as one of their Q&A regarding the Visitor Security Center this month. Mine was about the subbasement of the Deustche Bank building and it being backfilled.

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/q_a_intro.cfm

HurricaneFanatic

June 6th, 2009, 11:51 PM

So what is likely to happen to 200 Greenwich and 175 Greenwich? I like the way those two building look, so I hope they get built.

TonyO

June 9th, 2009, 07:42 AM

NY Times
June 9, 2009

Little Progress Is Seen in Talks on Ground Zero

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the developer Larry Silverstein remain deadlocked over construction of two giant office towers at ground zero, despite more than two weeks of high-level talks with state and city officials aimed at resolving the impasse.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who convened the sessions on May 21, had set a June 11 deadline for the parties to reach an agreement. But the talks have not brought Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority any closer, according to officials on both sides.

The latest indication of the stalemate came on Monday, as a proposal from the city and Mr. Silverstein got a lukewarm reception, according to officials who attended the discussion.

The battle is not over whether the office towers should be built at the World Trade Center site, but when and with whose money.

Mr. Silverstein, who leases the trade center land from the Port Authority, is to build three office towers on the 16-acre site. Unable to obtain the financing or tenants as he once anticipated, Mr. Silverstein has asked the authority to guarantee as much as $3.2 billion in financing for the construction of two of the three towers.

But the authority, which is already spending billions on its own 2.6-million-square-foot office tower at the site, a transit hub, and on portions of the 9/11 memorial, is reluctant to put more money into speculative office space, especially when its revenues are declining sharply. It did, however, offer to guarantee up to $1.2 billion in financing for one of Mr. Silverstein’s towers.

“We remain far apart on a second tower because of how much more public money is required to fund this speculative office building,” said Stephen Sigmund, a Port Authority spokesman. “Our position continues to be that the public’s resources are better spent on public projects first, not more private office space.”

All parties in the talks have been loath to discuss the meetings since agreeing to negotiate in private at a May 21 meeting at Gracie Mansion. Some officials privately acknowledge the lack of progress, even as Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, disputed the notion. “He believes that all the parties continue to act in good faith and are committed to coming up with a solution,” said Dan Weiller, a spokesman for Mr. Silver.

City officials hope for a breakthrough in the hours leading up to Thursday’s deadline.

Last month, the Port Authority made a proposal in which it agreed to guarantee the financing for Mr. Silverstein’s first tower. As for the second, $2.7 billion tower, it agreed to assist with the financing if Mr. Silverstein spent the next two years trying to find tenants for half the space, and invested $370 million of his own money as well as $430 million in insurance proceeds. In an effort to share the risks, the authority also asked the city to cover any shortfalls.

But Mr. Silverstein flatly refused to consider it.

Under his proposal, Mr. Silverstein would assume responsibility for much of the work at ground zero, with the developer claiming that he could save as much as $400 million on the authority’s current budget for the projects. The developer, who has not offered to guarantee those savings, said in a meeting Monday that he would invest $75 million. The arrangement would allow him to make an estimated $120 million in fees.

The city, in turn, has offered to cover up to $100 million in shortfalls in the financing, and has suggested that New York and New Jersey do the same. But the bulk of the financial responsibility for financing the towers would remain with the Port Authority. And neither Gov. David A. Paterson of New York nor Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey has wanted to invest more money in office space, given the condition of their state budgets.

Sherpa

June 9th, 2009, 08:04 AM

Billions paid to KBR Inc.

KBR Inc., the primary LOGCAP contractor in Iraq, has been paid nearly $32 billion since 2001. The commission says billions of dollars of that amount ended up wasted due to poorly defined work orders, inadequate oversight and contractor inefficiencies.

Cost of War in Iraq
$676,570,403,836

STT757

June 9th, 2009, 11:41 AM

“We remain far apart on a second tower because of how much more public money is required to fund this speculative office building,” said Stephen Sigmund, a Port Authority spokesman. “Our position continues to be that the public’s resources are better spent on public projects first, not more private office space.”

This is where the Port Authority is in the right, why keep pouring Billions of Public money that is coming from commuters paying tolls on the Six NYC-NJ crossings or the millions of people who fly into and out of EWR, JFK and LGA into a private developers speculative real estate developments.

All that public money would be better spent investing in the airports, or building the Cross Harbor freight tunnel. The general public will never even be allowed to step foot in any of these office towers (save One World Trade Center's observation deck), but Larry wants Billions of the publics money anyway.

Alonzo-ny

June 9th, 2009, 01:55 PM

I hate to say it but I agree. Public money shouldn't be used for the towers.

Sherpa

June 9th, 2009, 04:25 PM

so just surround the Calatrava Hub building with a nice green open park.:D

BrooklynRider

June 9th, 2009, 04:53 PM

I'm good for that.

lofter1

June 9th, 2009, 05:08 PM

Best idea ^ yet. Then transfer the air rights from 2 & # WTC to the Deutsche site and the BMCC site.

STT757

June 10th, 2009, 12:14 PM

Best idea ^ yet. Then transfer the air rights from 2 & # WTC to the Deutsche site and the BMCC site.

That's actually a good idea, the Deutsche site is currently without a plan. Of the designs for 200 Greenwich Street and 175 Greenwich Street I liked 175 Greenwich Street's the best, I think it would look great on the former Deutsche bank site.

My question is what is the BMCC , is that the Borough of Manhattan Community College?.. If so what site are we talking about?..

NYatKNIGHT

June 10th, 2009, 12:21 PM

Trade the two 5-storey retail stubs for a non-income generating park? Snap out of it everyone.

Sherpa

June 10th, 2009, 01:31 PM

It would be a park for the taxpayers who pay taxes and for the toll-payers who pay tolls and the path commuters who pay fares.

lofter1

June 10th, 2009, 10:27 PM

... what is the BMCC , is that the Borough of Manhattan Community College?

Fiterman Hall site, just NE of 7WTC and facing onto the site of the proposed PAC.

TonyO

June 12th, 2009, 08:03 AM

NY Times
June 12, 2009

Ground Zero Talks Still Stalled

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s deadline passed Thursday without a breakthrough in the impasse at ground zero between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the developer Larry Silverstein over construction of office towers on the site.

Mr. Bloomberg, who had set a June 11 deadline for the parties to reach an agreement, issued a statement on Thursday afternoon saying that talks would continue through the weekend. The city and Mr. Silverstein made a proposal earlier this week, but the two sides remained at odds.

“Governor Paterson, Governor Corzine, Speaker Silver and I spoke today, and — together with Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority — we agreed to extend the conversation through the weekend,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement, adding, “We’ll have another update on Monday.”

Last month, Mr. Bloomberg convened a high-level meeting of state officials from New York and New Jersey, as well as executives from the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties, all of whom pledged to quickly reach a compromise.

Mr. Silverstein has asked the authority to guarantee the financing for two of the three towers he is to build at the World Trade Center site — as much as $3.2 billion — because he is unable to obtain tenants and loans for the project.

The authority, which is building a skyscraper of its own at the site, is reluctant to pour more money into speculative commercial buildings when vacancy rates are rising downtown. The authority has offered to assist Mr. Silverstein with one tower. He has insisted that construction should proceed on at least two towers so that they will be ready when the economy rebounds.

DMAG

June 12th, 2009, 09:21 AM

Isn't Tower 1 (FT) just as speculative as any other tower being built on the site? It seems that the PA may be afraid that Larry will get all the prospective tenants in Tower 2 leaving the Tower 1 empty.

Then Westfield comes in, checkbook open offering to pay for the retail stubs. Tell me some sweetheart deal is not going on behind the scenes between them and the PA for that offering.

ZippyTheChimp

June 12th, 2009, 10:27 AM

If you're going to view the PA as a real-estate developer...

The PA owns and will operate 1WTC. They're responsible for financing and getting tenants.

Let's say you owned it. Would you underwrite financing for a competitor to build across the street while you're trying to fill your own building?

DMAG

June 12th, 2009, 01:37 PM

Agreed. I am also receiving lease payments from said developer for the property they wish to build on. Whether Silverstein build or not, the PA wins either way.

Sherpa

June 12th, 2009, 02:42 PM

As a governmental body, the Port has no profit motive, presumably. They should be looking out for the interests of the taxpayers, and presumably should stand by their obligations to Silverstein which were negotiated in light of the disaster of 9-11 that impacted each and every taxpayer in one way or another. The towers should all be built as agreed or simply turn the land into parkland that can be enjoyed by all of us taxpayers. Malls be damned!

Merry

June 13th, 2009, 09:25 AM

Past Deadline, Bloomberg Says World Trade Center Talks Will Continue

By Matt Dunning (http://www.tribecatrib.com/index.php?option=com_zine&view=author&id=1:)

UPDATED Jun. 12

http://www.tribecatrib.com/images/stories/2009/april/wtc-looking%20east-w.jpg

A view of the World Trade Center site, looking east along what will be a reconstructed Fulton Street.

After missing his self-imposed deadline for ending the latest feud between World Trade Center developers, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Thursday that talks between the two main parties responsible for rebuilding the 16-acre site would continue during this weekend.

Bloomberg, who had set Thursday, June 11 as the date by which the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Silverstein Properties would agree on a new “roadmap” for continuing construction at the World Trade Center site, said a deal could be announced as soon as Monday, June 15. The two sides have been squabbling for months over construction financing for developer Larry Silverstein’s three proposed office towers along Church Street, and the prolonged impasse now threatens a near halt of work on the site.

“Everyone remains committed to finding a resolution,” Bloomberg said in a statement released late Thursday afternoon. “We’ll have another update on Monday.”

Silverstein, unable to secure loans to fund construction of three massive office towers, wants the Port Authority to back financing for his Towers 2 and 4. The Authority, which is building 1 World Trade Center and the new transportation hub, has balked at the idea, and instead offered to invest close to $1 billion in the construction of Tower 4 in exchange for a share of the building’s rent revenue.

If a deal is not reached soon, progress on the much-delayed site as a whole could again slow to a crawl. At Bloomberg’s invitation, all of the major stakeholders in the site’s reconstruction—including Silverstein, State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, New York and New Jersey Governors David Paterson and Jon Corzine, and the Port Authority’s chairman Anthony Coscia and executive director Christopher Ward—met on May 21 after Silver said in a speech that he was “fed up” with the stalemate between Silverstein and the Port Authority.

The morning after the June 11 deadline passed, Silver was more diplomatic in his assessment of the negotiations.
“It’s obviously complex,” Silver said. “Financing was available two, three, four years ago to complete these projects, but everything was delayed and wasn’t coordinated very well. Hopefully we can move toward a conclusion in the very near future. We don’t want lot of false starts and photo opportunities.”

http://www.tribecatrib.com/images/stories/2009/april/wtc-towers.jpg

A rendering of the completed World Trade Center site. At right, along Church Street and a reconstructed Greenwich Street, are Larry Silverstein's three proposed office towers.

A source familiar with the negotiations said the two sides have spent the last several weeks since the May “summit” arguing over whether Tower 2 ought to be built immediately or put on hold until the commercial real estate market in Lower Manhattan recovers. Earlier this week, the source said, Silverstein offered to pay for much of the below-ground infrastructure work on the eastern part of the site, work that the Port Authority is years behind in completing. In exchange, the Authority would agree to serve as a guarantor for construction loans for Towers 2 and 4, and build a six-story mall-type “podium” at the site of Tower 3.

“We have made significant progress over the past three weeks,” Silverstein said in a statement. “I am confident that we can find a way to move forward together. As I’ve said many times before, failure is not an option.”

A spokesman for the Port Authority declined to comment on any part of the negotiations. Last month, the Authority offered to help fund Tower 2, but only if Silverstein committed $370 million of his own money—and another $430 million in insurance money he received for the destroyed World Trade Center—and agreed to surrender entirely the site for Tower 3, a source familiar with the negotiations said. Silverstein would also have to agree to stop charging the Authority the $300,000-a-day fee he collects for the late delivery of the sites for Towers 2 and 3, and give back the money he’s already received.

Another offer from the Port Authority would have the agency build the first few floors of Towers 2 and 3, allowing it to complete infrastructure work needed for the memorial museum and transit center. Those above-ground buildings would be outfitted with retail tenants while construction of the towers remained on hold until the commercial rental market recovers. Christopher Ward, the Authority’s executive director, has said that backing financing for Silverstein’s office towers before demand for office space Downtown resurges would destabilize the market.

The Port Authority seems to be alone in its opinion that the real estate market will not be strong enough to support three new office towers—Silverstein’s Towers 2 and 4 and the Authority’s 1 World Trade Center—among the reconstruction leaders participating in the negotiations. However, Govs. Paterson and Corzine—who ultimately control the Authority—have both said they are reluctant to inject public money into the private developments.

On June 8, the New York Times reported that the city has offered to contribute up to $100 million to cover any shortfalls in the financing of Tower 2. Bloomberg’s press office said it would not confirm the offer. Both Bloomberg and Silver have both said publicly that they are confident Lower Manhattan’s real estate market will turn around by the time Silverstein’s towers are completed.

http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2009/june/247_past-deadline-bloomberg-says-world-trade-center-talks-will-continue.html

BiggieSmalls

June 15th, 2009, 10:28 AM

Anyone have any idea what is up with the Earthcam of the WTC site?

Daquan13

June 15th, 2009, 10:40 AM

Anyone have any idea what is up with the Earthcam of the WTC site?

Probably a victim of the financial crisis. Maybe they can't afford to have it on now. :D

EugeneNYC

June 15th, 2009, 11:18 AM

Anyone have any idea what is up with the Earthcam of the WTC site?

Now, it's asking for a login. I hope they are not blocking it. It's too much fun. The rebuildgroundzero.org cam has been down as well.

BiggieSmalls

June 15th, 2009, 11:24 AM

im getting that too..

wasnt there another one in connection with that documentary of the rebuilding?

Seems weird that both would be down at the same time

EugeneNYC

June 15th, 2009, 11:53 AM

I also found this one, but the view isn't as good.

http://howtodaylooksgroundzero.blogspot.com/

TonyO

June 15th, 2009, 11:08 PM

NY Times

Still No Breakthrough in Ground Zero Talks

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: June 15, 2009

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s effort to break the impasse over the development of office towers on the 16-acre ground zero site limped along Monday, with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the developer Larry A. Silverstein still at odds.

Officials from New York and New Jersey, as well as the developer and the Port Authority, which owns the World Trade Center site, have been in constant discussions since last Thursday, which had been the mayor’s deadline for a resolution to be passed. But several officials involved in the talks say the two sides continue to snipe at each other’s proposals.

Deputy Mayor Robert C. Lieber tried to put the best face on what is becoming a tedious effort, while seeming to scold both sides.

“While our talks have made headway, we can continue to work through the details to try to arrive at a consensus that all parties can support,” Mr. Lieber said in a statement released by City Hall. “The redevelopment of ground zero is no ordinary real estate project. Rebuilding the site is a civic obligation of the highest order, and the people of our city rightly expect all those responsible for the site to work cooperatively to honor that obligation.”

Mr. Silverstein is to build three office towers on the site. Unable to obtain financing or secure anchor tenants, Mr. Silverstein has demanded that the Port Authority guarantee as much as $3.2 billion in loans.

The authority, which is already building a skyscraper, a transit hub and portions of the Sept. 11 memorial, reluctantly offered to provide help with up to $1.2 billion in financing for the first of the developer’s three towers. The authority does not want to function as a bank for speculative office space, especially at a time when commercial vacancy rates are climbing and the Port Authority’s own revenues have declined.

“We agree that the World Trade Center must be rebuilt to meet the public interest, which is why we will continue in good faith to push for a solution that delivers retail and office space to meet a significantly changed market while protecting public resources and public projects,” Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the authority, said in a statement. “In the meantime, the public side of the site will move forward.”

So far, the governors of New York and New Jersey have backed the authority’s position, while Mr. Bloomberg and Sheldon Silver, the New York State Assembly speaker, have largely supported Mr. Silverstein.

Despite the deadlock, hundreds of construction workers labor at the site on the authority’s office tower, the memorial, the transit hub and even Mr. Silverstein’s first tower, which is emerging at street level from the bottom of the construction pit.

scumonkey

June 15th, 2009, 11:19 PM

“We agree that the World Trade Center must be rebuilt to meet the public interest, which is why we will continue in good faith to push for a solution that delivers retail and office space to meet a significantly changed market while protecting public resources and public projects,”
Translation: We want retail stumps instead of Silversteins' buildings, and office space only in our tower.

BrooklynLove

June 16th, 2009, 06:45 AM

Why not approach Treasury re a TALF purchase of ABS backing loans for towers 2 and 3? With such an agreement in place, banks would likely lend. TALF could then sell the ABS to investors 10 years from now once the buildings are up and office space is renting.

BiggieSmalls

June 16th, 2009, 10:39 PM

Agree there HAS TO BE some way to get the Feds involved.

Like everyone is saying.. this is NOT just some big city development. THIS IS REBUILDING GROUND ZERO!!!!

Cant believe that the governors arent on the phone to Obama. Corzine is a smart guy with loads of connections. He could have a few billion wired from the TALF by Friday with a few calls.

Figure out a way to not make this a Silverstein bailout and lets start hanging some steel..

Daquan13

June 16th, 2009, 11:04 PM

This project will NEVER be completed as long as people just keep on throwing monkey wrenches into it! Just when everyone thought that it might be safe to assume that nothing else could go wrong!!

Bang, slam, a new frivelous excuse is born; The funds are dried up. Other than the Freedom Tower, and the Memorial, I've just about given up on everything else! Doesn't even look like a miracle can save it now. :mad:

Sherpa

June 16th, 2009, 11:15 PM

Daquan13

June 16th, 2009, 11:26 PM

Yeah, four simple office towers, and they can't even get THOSE built!

Well make that three because it appears as though Tower 4 is on the move. The other two, well, that's anybody's guess. :(

STT757

June 17th, 2009, 10:14 AM

Yeah, four simple office towers, and they can't even get THOSE built!

Well make that three because it appears as those Tower 4 is on the move. The other two, well, that's anybody's guess. :(

Four simple towers?...

These things are multi Billion dollar endeavors, and incase you haven't been watching the news lately the financial community in NYC (of which were the targeted tenants for these new buildings) have melted down over the past year. The NYC financial community has lost tens of thousands of jobs, some major companies including Lehman Brothers have gone under. Others including Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch have been acquired by other companies. There are less financial services firms and significantly less jobs than there were a year ago.

It's the worst economic crisis since the great depression, but you feel there should be no hesitation and reevaluation of a rebuilding plan and timetable that was developed prior to the economic collapse?. I don't see how anyone can be "full steam ahead" on a multi BIllion dollar project with no tenants when the City's vacancy rates are going higher, and the number of jobs are going lower.

The current conditions deserve a reevaluation of the site plan and schedule, who are they going to get to fill all this office space?..

Daquan13

June 17th, 2009, 11:57 AM

Wasn't it our understanding not too long ago, that the towers would all be built anyway, then filled as needed? They predicted that firms would be vying for office space at Ground Zero, and that the towers were all going to be built reguardless.

That certainly was the case with the Freedom tower, as was Seven, to which this day, some empty space still remains in the tower. It would have been filled more if Cantone were able to move in.

But it opted to vie for space in the Freedom Tower instead. The PA had first had its sights set on getting into the Freedom Tower when it gets built, then it switched gears and opted to move into Tower 4 (Wonder why that one is being built and not the other two?).

It doesn't want the other two built to try to save money, but at the same time, they WERE ONE OF THE PARTIES WHO AGREED back in the spring of '06 that ALL of the towers would be built through a collaberation between all parties involved. They are their own worst enemy!

They slowed things down when they didn't have the spots ready for the other towers in a timely fashion and ended op owing Silverstein penalty charges for it.

An iron-clad agreement was reached in '06, yet here we are three years later with nothing resolved again for the umpteenth time! And now, even the PATH Station is even in limbo because without Tower 2 being built, like Silverstein said, the PATH Station can't be built either.

Yes, it constantly seems as though it's the case of "Who will be the Next One to Throw a Monkeywrench In? Or; The Next Monkeywrench Thrower.

Hench why it is theorized that this project might not be done for decades to come!! Now they are using the financial crisis as another excuse when the funds were supposed to be there from the insurers in the first place. :(

STT757

June 17th, 2009, 12:22 PM

They slowed things down when they didn't have the spots ready for the other towers in a timely fashion and ended op owing Silverstein penalty charges for it.

An iron-clad agreement was reached in '06, yet here we are three years later with nothing resolved again for the umpteenth time! And now, even the PATH Station is even in limbo because without Tower 2 being built, like Silverstein said, the PATH Station can't be built either.

Yes, it constantly seems as though it's the case of "Who will be the Next One to Throw a Monkeywrench In? Or; The Next Monkeywrench Thrower.

Hench why it is theorized that this project might not be done for decades to come!! Now they are using the financial crisis as another excuse when the funds were supposed to be there from the insurers in the first place. :(

Wasn't it our understanding not too long ago, that the towers would all be built anyway, then filled as needed? They predicted that firms would be vying for office space at Ground Zero, and that the towers were all going to be built reguardless.

It doesn't want the other two built to try to save money, but at the same time, they WERE ONE OF THE PARTIES WHO AGREED back in the spring of '06 that ALL of the towers would be built through a collaberation between all parties involved. They are their own worst enemy!

Again have you been in a cave for the last year, we had this thing called an economic collapse last fall. 2006 might as well have been a thousand years ago, the economic climate now is significantly worse than it was in 2006. Several major companies have either ceased to exist or are in bankruptcy. The City lost 200,000 jobs in the last few months, the City of New York leads the Nation is job losses.

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/01/19/2009-01-19_new_york_to_lead_us_in_job_losses.html

But you think the towers should be built even if they sit empty?..

And where is the Port Authority supposed to come up with the money?..

The NYC airports (EWR, JFK, LGA) have all seen a 20% drop in air travelers, which means less revenue for the Port Authority.

The Ports cargo movements dropped last year for the first time in 15 years, which means less revenue for the Port Authority.

Less cars are using the six NJ-NYC crossings, which means less revenues for the Port Authority.

Every area of business the Port Authority is involved with has seen a decline in revenues, as someone who contributes on a daily basis to the Port Authority via the tolls I pay I don't want my money to be spent on building empty office buildings in Manhattan. I would rather the money be reinvested in the Airports or PATH system.

I think it would be a travesty to build these towers only for them to sit vacant, or worse yet to fill these Multi Billion dollar towers built with revenues from New Jersey commuters with Government agencies like Family Services, the DMV etc..

BTW..

Where did you come up with the nonsense about the PATH hub, it's "on track". The PATH hub and the Memorial are the only parts of the World Trade Center you, me or anyone else is going to ever be able to visit. 99% of the residents in the region will never set foot in those World Trade Center office towers.

BrooklynRider

June 17th, 2009, 12:30 PM

Give us mixed use towers like the Hancock Center in Chicago.

scumonkey

June 17th, 2009, 12:36 PM

That would be nice, but even still, I just want them built!
I don't care if they sit empty for a while-the Empire State building
was called the "Empty State" building after it was completed...
they will eventually get filled with something- much better
than that hole in the ground, or stumps.

ZippyTheChimp

June 17th, 2009, 02:02 PM

The PA had first had its sights set on getting into the Freedom Tower when it gets built, then it switched gears and opted to move into Tower 4 (Wonder why that one is being built and not the other two?)Put the question on top, and the answer follows.

Daquan13

June 17th, 2009, 02:43 PM

Again have you been in a cave for the last year, we had this thing called an economic collapse last fall. 2006 might as well have been a thousand years ago, the economic climate now is significantly worse than it was in 2006. Several major companies have either ceased to exist or are in bankruptcy. The City lost 200,000 jobs in the last few months, the City of New York leads the Nation is job losses.

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/01/19/2009-01-19_new_york_to_lead_us_in_job_losses.html

But you think the towers should be built even if they sit empty?..

And where is the Port Authority supposed to come up with the money?..

The NYC airports (EWR, JFK, LGA) have all seen a 20% drop in air travelers, which means less revenue for the Port Authority.

The Ports cargo movements dropped last year for the first time in 15 years, which means less revenue for the Port Authority.

Less cars are using the six NJ-NYC crossings, which means less revenues for the Port Authority.

Every area of business the Port Authority is involved with has seen a decline in revenues, as someone who contributes on a daily basis to the Port Authority via the tolls I pay I don't want my money to be spent on building empty office buildings in Manhattan. I would rather the money be reinvested in the Airports or PATH system.

I think it would be a travesty to build these towers only for them to sit vacant, or worse yet to fill these Multi Billion dollar towers built with revenues from New Jersey commuters with Government agencies like Family Services, the DMV etc..

BTW..

Where did you come up with the nonsense about the PATH hub, it's "on track". The PATH hub and the Memorial are the only parts of the World Trade Center you, me or anyone else is going to ever be able to visit. 99% of the residents in the region will never set foot in those World Trade Center office towers.

Nonsense about the PATH hub?

Silverstein himself said that a few weeks ago that Tower 2 would havd to be built in order for the PATH hub to be built, and that if not, then the PATH hub would be delayed as well because they both would pretty much be sharing almost the same utilities.

And that when the utility lines are put in, it would be for BOTH projects. In other words, for the PATH hub to be built, it needs Tower 2 to be built.

ZippyTheChimp

June 17th, 2009, 02:50 PM

Where would these utilities be located?

Daquan13

June 17th, 2009, 02:56 PM

Where would these utilities be located?

Don't know exactly where, but Sivlerstein DID mention that they need to be put in with T2 u/c.

I think it's mainly electrical, plumbing and cable lines. And maybe an emergency backup generator as well.

I would tend to think that they are going to be put somewhere underneath the station - sort of like they do with the towers. :)

ZippyTheChimp

June 17th, 2009, 03:10 PM

Sherpa

June 17th, 2009, 03:23 PM

Or a park

Daquan13

June 17th, 2009, 03:42 PM

I think that any common utilities are going to be located below street level. So when Silverstein says "with T2 under construction," maybe he means the base.

That the hole must be filled in seems obvious to me.

So we're back to retail stubs.

Yeah, I believe that's it. They're still in talks about the Eastern half of Ground Zero. Silverstein is trying to work out a deal that would still help get the towers on THAT side built sooner.

So I'm not sure if the stumps are still a go yet.

EugeneNYC

June 17th, 2009, 04:59 PM

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090617/FREE/906179974

HoveringCheesecake

June 17th, 2009, 05:02 PM

Give us mixed use towers like the Hancock Center in Chicago.

It's too bad Chicago already has *the* Hancock Center because that is probably my favorite skyscraper. So simple, yet so complex.

EDIT: Scratch that. Favorite in Chicago. Nothing beats ESB and Chrysler.

EugeneNYC

June 17th, 2009, 05:26 PM

From this not so great view (http://howtodaylooksgroundzero.blogspot.com/) it looks like the North core jumped recently. It is painful without the WTC Earthcam. :mad:

CitiesfromSpace

June 17th, 2009, 05:56 PM

I walked by today and there was a big pour going on over on the North Core :)

BiggieSmalls

June 17th, 2009, 06:08 PM

whose got the sack to call up earthcam and find out what's up?

looks like the Eastern Path Demo is moving along. Not much progress on the memorial though. the decking has been pretty static,. But it looks like some progress on the lower level decking near the Chiller Plant

Daquan13

June 17th, 2009, 06:49 PM

Well, at least I'm not the only one who thinks that the PA is playing stalling tactics. Mayor Bloomberg does as well!

Hopefully, he and Silverstein might be able to help the PA see the errors of its ways. :mad:

STT757

June 17th, 2009, 07:43 PM

From the article:

The mayor added that the city itself may find a way to help end the impasse with some funds of its own. He wasn’t specific, but sources say that during negotiations the city had offered to cover $100 million in Mr. Silverstein’s financing shortfalls so that he could construct two towers. Mr. Silverstein wants the Port to back two of his towers but the agency has only offered support for one, saying it would be irresponsible to use public money to finance a risky, private real estate deal. The city’s offer still doesn’t take enough financial risk off the Port’s back, according to some sources close to the negotiations.

The $100 Million is a drop in the bucket compared to the Billions the Port Authority is taking on, and if you read on in the article both the Governor's of New York and New Jersey who share control of the Port Authority support the Port Authority's position.

Perhaps the City and State of New York should back a Tower, and the Port Authority another. Let the City put it's money where it's mouth is.

HoveringCheesecake

June 18th, 2009, 04:23 PM

Daquan13

June 18th, 2009, 11:52 PM

Our buddy Shuster was just on MSNBC again complaining about the site plan. This time he cited "engineering and architectural mistakes" as the reasons for the delays. Apparently groups of 9/11 families are demanding to meet with Bloomberg about building the Twin Towers II design, but their pleading is falling on deaf ears. :rolleyes:

It's not going to happen. They're just wasting their time.

Shuster is just as powerless as the others before him. He needs to grow up and get over it! :rolleyes:

USSManhattan

June 21st, 2009, 07:33 PM

groups of 9/11 families are demanding to meet with Bloomberg about building the Twin Towers II design, but their pleading is falling on deaf ears. :rolleyes:

AKA the very obnoxious and delusional Twin Towers Alliance. They just compared the situation to the teaser for Spider-Man 1, saying the developers are the thugs that Spidey nabbed. It ended literally calling for his help.

Daquan13

June 22nd, 2009, 11:44 AM

AKA the very obnoxious and delusional Twin Towers Alliance. They just compared the situation to the teaser for Spider-Man 1, saying the developers are the thugs that Spidey nabbed. It ended literally calling for his help.

When, just when are these dilusional nut jobs going to realise that those two buildings in any shape or form are not going to be built?! Geez!!

The intense amount of effort spent by them ranting and raving on about this, could be better spent by them appreciating what we are going to get!! :mad:

kz1000ps

June 22nd, 2009, 08:37 PM

David Shuster - the anti-Freedom-Tower Twins-crap-spewing fanatic that he is, needs to just go get real!! Like they are going to just bullzose down all of the work that's being done on the Freedom Tower so far and put the Twins back there instead.

About the only other thing that the Freedom Tower needs is just a dash or sprinkling of get over it, move on, it won! He needs to just keep his Twins bullcrap off the air and realise that they are never coming back!

It's not going to happen. They're just wasting their time.

Shuster is just as powerless as the others before him. He needs to grow up and get over it! :rolleyes:

When, just when are these dilusional nut jobs going to realise that those two buildings in any shape or form are not going to be built?! Geez!!

The intense amount of effort spent by them ranting and raving on about this, could be better spent by them appreciating what we are going to get!! :mad:

Is there an echo in here?

TonyO

June 23rd, 2009, 08:00 AM

NY Times
June 23, 2009

Once at Odds, Bloomberg and Silver Pressure Port Authority on the Trade Center

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Although the negotiations over the World Trade Center site have gone nowhere, the deadlock has produced something of note: a startling alliance between Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

The former adversaries came together last week to rebuke the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for its refusal to guarantee billions of dollars in financing for two office towers that the developer Larry A. Silverstein is to build at the trade center site.

A joint statement united the developer’s most persistent critic, Mayor Bloomberg, and Mr. Silverstein’s most consistent champion, Mr. Silver. Until recently, any significant cooperation between the two would have seemed unlikely; Mr. Silver, after all, handed Mr. Bloomberg the biggest political defeats of his mayoralty: scuttling a proposed football stadium on the West Side of Manhattan in 2005 and blocking the mayor’s congestion pricing plan in 2008.

But Mr. Bloomberg has found ways to work with the speaker, now the most powerful politician in Albany. At the city’s request, Mr. Silver got state money budgeted for Governors Island this spring; more recently, the Assembly approved the mayor’s plan to raise the city’s sales tax.

And the mayor publicly thanked Mr. Silver for his central role in the Assembly’s passage of a bill on Wednesday concerning what is perhaps the mayor’s most cherished issue: retaining mayoral control of city schools.

The recent cooperation has some analysts questioning whether the mayor’s change of heart had more to do with political prudence than real estate.

“This may well be a payback for Silver’s support in Albany for continuing mayoral control of the schools,” said Bruce F. Berg, a political science professor at Fordham University. “I think he’s also eager, given the upcoming election, to get something going in Lower Manhattan.”

But Mr. Silver, whose district includes Lower Manhattan, said that although he and the mayor were now “on the same page” regarding the trade center, the notion of a quid pro quo was “absurd.”

Stu Loeser, the mayor’s chief spokesman, said that Mr. Bloomberg’s turnabout was based on a thorough analysis of the financial numbers and a “deep concern about delays.”

“The mayor and the speaker share the view that it’s in nobody’s interest — not the country’s, not the city’s, not the port’s and not Mr. Silverstein’s — to have progress grind to a halt at the World Trade Center site,” Mr. Loeser said.

No matter the motivation, the mayor’s position has certainly evolved rapidly. In 2006, Mr. Bloomberg called for Mr. Silverstein’s ouster, saying, “We need to push aside individual financial interests and focus on what’s best for our city.”

As recently as March, the mayor framed the reasons for the impasse and seemed to sympathize with the Port Authority, saying: “What Larry did is take out all his equity at the beginning, so he really doesn’t have a lot of skin in the game. He had an enormous amount of upside potential, which doesn’t leave the Port Authority with a lot of negotiating ability, because they’re the ones who have to put up the money.”

But now, Mr. Bloomberg wants the authority to guarantee most of the financing for Mr. Silverstein’s two towers, which are expected to cost $4.2 billion.

“I will say Larry Silverstein, while not turning over the keys to his family’s net worth, has come up and has made a lot of progress,” the mayor told reporters last week.

Certainly, many of the city’s civic groups, some developers, Port Authority officials and, to an extent, the governors of New York and New Jersey disagree with the mayor’s new approach. Until now, no one ever conceived of the authority financing the office buildings at ground zero.

Under a 2006 development deal, Mr. Silverstein had agreed to build three towers at an estimated cost of $7 billion with insurance money, tax-exempt bonds and private financing. Unable to secure anchor tenants or financing, Mr. Silverstein in recent months asked the Port Authority to guarantee what the authority said was $3.2 billion in financing for the first two buildings, leaving the third tower to be built further in the future.

The authority reluctantly agreed to provide up to $1.2 billion for the first tower, which Mr. Silverstein is now building. But it balked at doing more, saying it would jeopardize the authority’s capital projects at a time when revenue from tolls and airports is plunging.

“We will continue to do all that we can at the trade center,” said Christopher O. Ward, the authority’s executive director, “but you must recognize that this project could come at the expense of critical public projects such as La Guardia, expanding Stewart Airport, the Bayonne Bridge or a bus garage for the midtown bus terminal.”

Instead of building two of the towers now, Mr. Ward suggested completing the foundations and low-scale structures for retailers, which at some point in the future could serve as structural podiums for high-rise towers above, much like those at the Hearst Magazine Building on Eighth Avenue.

Two weeks ago, the Westfield Group, the Australian shopping mall operator, offered to invest as much as $1.3 billion to build a retail complex similar to Mr. Ward’s proposal.

But even before Westfield’s offer, Mr. Silverstein and city officials had rejected the concept as impractical, although they had endorsed the very same notion in 2004.

There is progress on the 16-acre site. The Port Authority, which owns the land, is building a $3.2 billion transit center, underground portions of the Sept. 11 memorial and its own $3 billion skyscraper. Mr. Silverstein, who has collected more than $150 million in development fees, is rapidly erecting the first of his three office towers.

Mayor Bloomberg, Mr. Silver and Mr. Silverstein contend that it is critically important to build the towers at ground zero as quickly as possible. By the time the towers are completed, they say, the economy will have rebounded. They argue that the Port Authority has exaggerated the value of its $1.2 billion offer to Mr. Silverstein and overestimated the risks to its capital budget. They concede, however, that some authority projects would have to be delayed to finance the towers.

But some developers question the push to build that much office space so quickly when vacancy rates are climbing and tenants are scarce. At what may be better sites on Eighth Avenue in Midtown, the developers Mortimer B. Zuckerman and Stephen M. Ross recently canceled their plans to build two new office towers.

“The port’s money is supposed to be used for transportation, not speculative office buildings,” said the developer Douglas Durst. “It doesn’t make any sense to me to force the authority to do what the private developers won’t do.”

philvia

June 23rd, 2009, 09:05 AM

Daquan13

June 23rd, 2009, 09:19 AM

while i agree the PA money should be used for transportation projects only, they're the ones who put themselves in this mess by wanted to develop tower 1, so i think that argument is not valid anymore.

and of course questioning other developers about what Silverstein and the PA should do will only bring negative criticism LOL! they dont want that flood of office space these towers will provide :durr:

i wonder if the PA would match whatever Larry pays out of his own pocket? that seems like the only fair way to me

Until those monkey wrenches are all thrown in the trash, then I'll believe that the eastern half of Ground Zero will move forward.

There has just been too much bullshit, mind games, red tape apathy, snags, snarls and quivling over this whole project ever since Pataki was in office!!

And I get so sick & tired of it all!! Just finally BUILD the goddamn thing, PA!! And stop all of this crap!! :mad:

STT757

June 23rd, 2009, 06:22 PM

Until those monkey wrenches are all thrown in the trash, then I'll believe that the eastern half of Ground Zero will move forward.

There has just been too much bullshit, mind games, red tape apathy, snags, snarls and quivling over this whole project ever since Pataki was in office!!

And I get so sick & tired of it all!! Just finally BUILD the goddamn thing, PA!! And stop all of this crap!! :mad:

And how much more should the Port Authority raise the tolls at the six NJ-NYC crossings to pay for this, obviously you don't care being in Massachusetts. But what about us daily commuters, how much should we shell out so the Port Authority can help a private Developer (Silverstein) build office towers that he cannot finance himself?.. Office buildings 99% of the residents of the tri-State area will never set one foot in, office buildings that don't have any prospective tenants line up.

$15, $20 to cross the Outerbridge? How much does Larry need, I'm sure in this time of skyrocketing gas prices, falling home values, wages falling etc.. that daily commuters would be a little upset at having to pay more to go to work everyday to help building some Billionaire developer's project.

Honestly, some sanity needs to return to the whole process. Build the public parts (memorial, Transit hub) and whatever the market will support. Anything else can wait until the economy recovers.

The original Seven World Trade Center opened 14 years after the Twin Towers were completed, why now does everything have to built at once?..

Daquan13

June 23rd, 2009, 06:38 PM

And how much more should the Port Authority raise the tolls at the six NJ-NYC crossings to pay for this, obviously you don't care being in Massachusetts. But what about us daily commuters, how much should we shell out so the Port Authority can help a private Developer (Silverstein) build office towers that he cannot finance himself?.. Office buildings 99% of the residents of the tri-State area will never set one foot in, office buildings that don't have any prospective tenants line up.

$15, $20 to cross the Outerbridge? How much does Larry need, I'm sure in this time of skyrocketing gas prices, falling home values, wages falling etc.. that daily commuters would be a little upset at having to pay more to go to work everyday to help building some Billionaire developer's project.

Honestly, some sanity needs to return to the whole process. Build the public parts (memorial, Transit hub) and whatever the market will support. Anything else can wait until the economy recovers.

The original Seven World Trade Center opened 14 years after the Twin Towers were completed, why now does everything have to built at once?..

We got our own share of jacked-up tolls. Why now does everything have to be rebuilt all at once? If I remember correctly, the revised deal back in '06 was to get all of the towers u/c almost simutaneously.

The PA is just using the financial crisis as an excuse to weasel their way out of the deal that was made in '07 or so. The financial crisis wasn't always there.

I don't see Silverstein wimping out. He WANTS to get the Job Done. The oringinal 7 WTC was not thought of when the Twins were completed, I don't think.

lofter1

June 23rd, 2009, 07:45 PM

Get a grip -- use some logical perspective.

A individual's desire to see a few towers rise into the sky means little in this situation.

(And please STOP quoting each and every post -- it's not allowed and it's moe aggravating than David Shuster :cool: )

Derek2k3

June 23rd, 2009, 08:01 PM

There's a hint in one of the articles that Silverstein would have gotten private financing (before the crisis) if the PA finished preparing the sites on time. If that's true, then the PA should pony up.

Daquan13

June 23rd, 2009, 10:04 PM

Lofter1;

I have not quoted every post.

To see a few towers probably DOES mean very little, so it's just wishful thinking at this point. Think about it.

The logical perspective here is that for all their talking and planning, they are just blowing out an awful lot of hot air that goes nowhere.

Travis

June 23rd, 2009, 11:25 PM

Now, it was my understanding that the PA was only being asked to guarantee what would have been private loans. Is that incorrect?

Daquan13

June 23rd, 2009, 11:36 PM

I wouldn't doubt it.

GreenwichBoy

June 27th, 2009, 03:11 PM

6/27/09

Sherpa

June 28th, 2009, 03:19 PM

WTC HARD HATS GET HAMMERED
By ANNIE KARNI, JAMES FANELLI and BRAD HAMILTON

Hard-drinking hard hats at the World Trade Center site have turned their lunch hour into happy hour, pounding beers and shots of hard liquor before returning to work, a Post investigation found.

Dozens of workers belly up to the bar at gin mills on Murray Street -- two blocks from the sacred soil of Ground Zero and America's most scrutinized construction project -- shortly before noon every day.

One group of three workers threw back eight drinks each in less than an hour before returning to the job.

Their power drinking is a violation of the Port Authority's zero-tolerance policy -- and escaped the notice of the agency's safety investigators, who have conducted dozens of sweeps since taking control of Ground Zero construction in 2006.

Reporters watched hard hats for a week as they walked from the pit for their hourlong meal break, typically at about 11:45 a.m. Many headed north on West Broadway to Murray Street, which is lined with bars and pubs.

On Friday, June 19, three men working on the site's transportation hub were spotted at Biddy Early's Pub & Restaurant at 43 Murray St. The three pals plus a fourth worker gulped three beers and two shots of whiskey each during the lunch hour, when the bar was packed with construction workers.

They openly discussed their drinking, their Ground Zero work -- and DWI arrests.

"We don't have to worry until someone severs a hand," joked one of the hard hats.

The three amigos went at it again on Wednesday, ordering three beers and two whiskeys apiece between noon and 1 p.m.

On Thursday, their boozefest kicked into overdrive.

The trio -- the oldest man around 40 years old, the others baby-faced -- sucked down four beers and four shots of hard liquor each in about 50 minutes.

That much booze would likely result in a blood-alcohol content of 0.14 to 0.16 percent -- twice the state's definition of drunk.

The three workers arrived at Biddy's at about 11:50 a.m. The older hard hat ordered a Bass ale, and his buddies each got Budweisers. At 12:06 p.m., the youngest worker bought shots of clear liquor and three more beers. The men were then joined by a colleague named Johnny, who ordered a beer.

At 12:14, Johnny left and the other three bought another round of beers and three more shots of liquor. After more beers and shots, they left at 12:40 p.m. and walked back to Ground Zero, ducking into an entrance for workers to the side of the PATH station. They told a reporter they were working on the hub's 1 train line.

The guzzling Ground Zero guys appeared to be regulars; a female bartender called them by their first names. They walked back to the pit all three times reporters observed them.

They weren't the only ones pounding 'em back before doing some hammering.

On Tuesday at Uncle Mike's at 57 Murray St., reporters saw five hard hats assigned to the Freedom Tower throw back three beers each in an hour. The group came in at about 11:50 a.m. and sat at the bar, ordering draft beers and bottles of Corona while flirting with a tall brunette bartender.

They drank three rounds at the raunchy joint, a music venue by night where the daytime crowd is mostly hard hats. They left at about 12:50 p.m., walking to the Ground Zero site and entering through a gate on West Broadway.

One was then spotted standing on a steel beam amid iron latticework that's part of the Freedom Tower structure.

Another twosome downed two beers each at Uncle Mike's on Tuesday, one of them also drinking a shot of vodka. They crudely barked orders to the bartender, whom they called "Sugar Pants." They left at 12:55 p.m. and walked to the West Broadway workers' gate.

On Wednesday, the pair came in at noon, one drinking two beers and the other having a single brew with hard-hat pals.

A friend walked in and yelled, "You guys are all degenerates, in here every day!"

"I promised myself I wouldn't come in here Monday or Tuesday," one barfly said.

His buddy replied, "Well, now it's Wednesday!"

At 12:15, a female Post reporter walked in. The customers approached her, asking who she was. She said she was from out of town. One spotted her camera and said, "Take a picture of us!" They posed, and she took a single photo.

The grinning gang told her they were all ironworkers helping build a waterfall that is part of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum.

When the reporter went to the bathroom, the bartender yelled, "Why would you let her take your picture? What the f- - - were you guys thinking?" She said the reporter could have been a labor investigator.

The bartender reached over the top of the bar and rifled through the reporter's shopping bag, saying she was looking for the camera.

"Delete the picture," one of the workers said.

They didn't find the camera.

Later, a bar maintenance worker told the Post photographer that managers had observed people videotaping bar customers coming and going.

"The Port Authority does not tolerate this behavior and has a very strict no-alcohol, no-smoking policy," said PA spokesman Steve Coleman. "Our inspector general's office does weekly sweeps looking for inappropriate behavior, and if any worker is caught violating our policy, we confiscate their World Trade Center ID cards and work with our contractors on appropriate disciplinary action."

Daquan13

June 28th, 2009, 03:30 PM

Doesn't surprise me one bit.

There is enough stuff that has gone on & coninues to go on at Ground Zero to write a book about! :p

BrooklynLove

June 28th, 2009, 07:34 PM

"The Port Authority does not tolerate this behavior and has a very strict no-alcohol, no-smoking policy," said PA spokesman Steve Coleman. "Our inspector general's office does weekly sweeps looking for inappropriate behavior, and if any worker is caught violating our policy, we confiscate their World Trade Center ID cards and work with our contractors on appropriate disciplinary action."

Hey inspector general - you missed this guy!

http://www.grapesandgrainsnyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/drunk-urinal.jpg

Sherpa

June 29th, 2009, 12:45 AM

LATEST STUMBLE ON 'SLURRY' WALL
By STEVE CUOZZO

June 28, 2009 --
Just thinking about Ground Zero can drive you to drink.

Look at the 16-acre site without even one completed project almost eight years after 9/11, and you want to slip into the Millenium Hotel's third-floor bar overlooking the pit and down a Slurry Wallbanger -- oops, Harvey Wallbanger -- to numb your brain.

But it's not an option for construction workers. The hardhats' lunchtime boozing, observed and photographed by The Post, reflects the lack of accountability that plagues the whole downtown rebuilding effort.

This outrage is much worse than when this newspaper found hundreds of pages of "confidential" rebuilding documents, including Freedom Tower architectural drawings, dumped in garbage cans last year.

The Port Authority had trouble explaining that. But when it comes to construction workers getting smashed on their lunch hours, there must be no failure to identify and punish the guilty.

Working drunk is forbidden on any legitimate construction site. It's more reprehensible at the World Trade Center -- "hallowed ground," indeed.

You'd think that after the 2007 blaze that killed two firefighters at the former Deutsche Bank hulk and brought demolition to a halt, everyone toiling in the crater across the street would go the extra mile to prevent accidents.

But prosecutors' failure to bring all those responsible for the catastrophe to justice, and the city's patty-cake treatment of Fire Department higher-ups, likely enabled a don't ask, don't tell atmosphere at Ground Zero, as well.

Scores of participants are involved: the Port Authority, the MTA, Silverstein Properties, Bovis, labor unions, and a zillion agencies and subcontractors no one's ever heard of. But prime responsibility lies with the Port. It owns the place, after all.

With a tight knot of massive projects under way right on top of one another, above and below ground, the WTC site is unbelievably hazardous. You learn that even on a carefully monitored, heavily escorted descent to the floor and on the long climb back up.

Today, there's much more work going on than I saw in spring 2008. No sane being would set foot there, much less venture out on a beam or operate powerful machines, with a molecule of alcohol in his system.

To find workers drinking themselves blotto midday is sickening enough, but not as appalling as the realization that nobody's watching. This is a job site where precision and attention to detail make all the difference. Everything is so interconnected, there's no margin for error.

It's particularly disheartening that some of the hard-drinking hard hats work on the memorial waterfalls. It will be a miracle if the engineers figure out how to make them work more than a few months a year in a city where the smallest fountains need to be turned off from October until May.

To learn that some of the people putting them together are wasted enough to get tossed from a dive bar is enough to cost you sleep -- and break your heart.

steve.cuozzo@nypost.com

Sherpa

June 29th, 2009, 12:54 AM

"You can lead a horse to water...."

Daquan13

June 29th, 2009, 01:12 AM

Ether that guy is drunk or he didn't know where to get a drink of water! :p

Sherpa

June 29th, 2009, 09:26 AM

While it probably helps to be wasted to deal with the World Trade Center redevelopment mess on a daily basis, that's probably not true for the WTC's construction workers, some of whom were caught in an embarrassing Post sting boozing it up on their lunch hours. Murray Street apparently becomes Mardi Gras every day at 11:45 a.m. (burgers and shots—yum!), then the hardhats head back to work at Ground Zero. Cuozzo is outraged (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06282009/news/columnists/latest_stumble_on_slurry_wall_176481.htm), and the guys in the photos might be looking for new jobs today.

Daquan13

June 29th, 2009, 10:55 AM

Fire them all and hire NEW workers!

Do like the MBTA in Boston does about being caught with and using cell phones on the job!!

There is no need for this and it's got to stop!! :mad:

Sherpa

June 30th, 2009, 09:35 AM

Two construction workers caught by The Post last week slamming down beers and shots while on a lunch break from rebuilding Ground Zero were booted from their jobs yesterday.
The men, whose names have not been released, were identified by the contractor running the construction job based on Post photos taken inside a Murray Street bar popular with the Ground Zero hardhats.
"We have a zero-tolerance policy for alcohol and drugs on the job, and the workers we identified were terminated," said Port Authority spokesman Stephen Sigmund. "And if we can identify any others, they will be terminated, too."
Phoenix Constructors, which is in charge of the building of the World Trade Center's transit hub, identified the workers as their employees and fired them, Sigmund said.
Phoenix and other contractors at Ground Zero, including Bovis Lend Lease and Tishman Construction, warned their crews yesterday about drinking and drugs on the job.

Daquan13

June 30th, 2009, 10:37 AM

Finally.

Justice being enforced to Get the Job Done!!

They should have been doing this all along. :p

Sherpa

June 30th, 2009, 11:01 AM

I walked by that bar "Mike's" on Murray St yesterday to see if there were any hard hats inside. But the windows have been conveniently covered with some kind of one-way film so that outsiders cannot see inside. I'd say it was done as a way of accommodating the afternoon customers and to make them feel like they were inside a safe drinking haven away from prying eyes.:cool:

Daquan13

June 30th, 2009, 11:04 AM

What was that song Michael Jackson sang, Somebody's Watching Me?

Drinking alcohol was never allowed on the job, and there's no need for it to start now! :p

STT757

June 30th, 2009, 04:52 PM

What was that song Michael Jackson sang, Somebody's Watching Me?

That's not Michael Jackson.

scumonkey

June 30th, 2009, 05:03 PM

That would be Rockwell
( Michael only lent his voice)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD21JDMp86c

BrooklynRider

June 30th, 2009, 09:11 PM

Daquan13

June 30th, 2009, 09:18 PM

I knew thiugh, that MJ had something to do with it.

Sherpa

July 2nd, 2009, 02:45 PM

21 Comments

1. July 2, 2009 9:48 am

You also see a lot of these guys just standing around if you can focus on them for any length of time.
— Phishaw
2. July 2, 2009 10:10 am
Hmmm….almost 8 years have passed and this is as far as they have gotten? What a waste of time and resources. Should have just made that space a parking garage or a park. It would have been easier and less expensive.
— Capt. Concernicus
3. July 2, 2009 10:16 am
Phishaw:
You are looking at a still photograph…why so hard to focus?
Sadly, the whole development project was hijacked by the politics of the survivors and Pataki’s quest for the presidency (can you imagine?). This is an important milestone, and before too long we’re going to see very, very quick movement as the building rises at about a floor a week. So for couch potato critics who have nothing positive to add to the process, I suggest trying to get some facts before shooting off with opinions.
— Tailor Made
4. July 2, 2009 10:18 am
Ah, Pishaw’s comments are spoken like someone who does office work for a living.
— anonymiss
5. July 2, 2009 10:19 am
This could have been a park. The city really doesn’t need more (empty) office space. A park with a memorial would have been more fitting.
— Beth
6. July 2, 2009 10:30 am
Pataki? You blame Pataki? That would be the “find some Republican I can blame, no matter how remote” strategy. This becomes less tenable when there are no geographical or temporally proximate Republican to blame, but it’s still used under these circumstances as well. Presumably, when there is nothing finished on that site in 2025 commenters will somehow blame the “Reagan Administration” or “Christine Whitman”. Good luck with that.
— Eric F.
7. July 2, 2009 10:32 am
The demand for more office space in downtown Manhattan is insatiable; these towers should be built soon and made very tall. My projections calls for a 12% annualized increase in office demand through 2020.
— Andrew H. Calderwood from Darien, CT
8. July 2, 2009 10:33 am
I am referring to the video, linked to in the full article.
Perhaps I am not as ignorant or as lazy as I seem. Watch the video and then start another round of accusing me of being a fool.
Thanks.
— Phishaw
9. July 2, 2009 10:49 am
Not just a boondoggle, but a slow, expensive boondoggle!
At least it only replaces a previous boondoggle, rather than being a whole new one.
— David Jones
10. July 2, 2009 10:56 am
They’ll never be able to populate it; at least not the top half. Face it, would YOU be willing to work there?…
— Paul
11. July 2, 2009 11:06 am
Fact: The financing for the remaining towers and their plans for completion have not yet been finalized. Silverstein wants Port Authority to foot the bill, and he gets an equity stake to reap the benefits.
Fact: There are only a handful of tenants currently interested in leasing this super-expensive office space. There are better and cheaper commercial real estate alternatives all over Manhattan in desirable locations that literally go for 1/2 the price.
Let’s face it: the whole site was planned with blind optimism. The victims families’ expectations were a product of group think and a loss of regard for others, which posed a significant setback for completion of the plans in the early years.
If the politics were cut out of this process from the beginning, the plans would have been finalized in 03, construction started in 04. By the time the recession rolled around most of the financing would have been secured and the project would be nearing completion.
Oh yeah, don’t blame the construction workers. They’re doing their job day or night, hot or cold. I remember walking to work this winter in -10 degree windchill, seeing those guys hammering away; meanwhile I was headed to a 72 degree temperature controlled office building. Keep it up guys!
— Andrey Z
12. July 2, 2009 11:09 am
I think they need to build this twin tower again in order to expand the world trade again. Also, it might help create more jobs and help the economy as a whole.
— Ken
13. July 2, 2009 11:10 am
I hope they include fountains that shoot streams of water from one end to the other.
— bjtnj
14. July 2, 2009 11:12 am
This still doesn’t make the Freedom Tower definate despite this process. Let’s not forget the WTC summit that is going on with Mike Bloomberg, Larry Silverstein, Sheldon Silver, David Patterson, and Chris Ward. That meeting was supposed to go for just a few days, but it turnned into even more disputes and made the problems even worse not to mention it went more than it was expected to go. Silver even wrote an editorial in the Huffington Post how about how much that meeting was such an embarrasment. If they want to get out of that, then I suggest that they scrap this plan and have the Twin Towers rebuilt instead, though there would be no need to demolish any existing foundation work because it can always be retrofitted to go with it.
— Tal Barzilai
15. July 2, 2009 11:23 am
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
— Integrity
16. July 2, 2009 11:23 am
#2 CC- I agree with you completely. It’s time to move on furtermore…I dread the annual name reading, wound opening ceremony. BAH! If we dont move on the healing process will just lie dormant and whoever is responsible for the tragedy of 9/11 is enjoying the full weight of our despair.
# 4 - What’s dishonorable about office work?
— connie
17. July 2, 2009 11:34 am
Everyone wants the original WTC back, why is that so hard?
Also, it sickens me that an Israeli designed the monument. We all know that Silverstein is a friend of Netanyahu (the man who claimed 9/11 was good for israel) but are we really to believe, that an AMERICAN was incapable of designing a monument for the worst attack on American soil?
— Peter
18. July 2, 2009 11:43 am
We don’t want the Freedom Tower plan! Please stop working on it and build the Twin Towers II. Its a disgrace we call it One World Trade Center again..the Freedom Tower can match the beauty of the old WTC therefor it shouldn’t deserve its name.
— Kyle David
19. July 2, 2009 1:16 pm
It is rumored that certain objects have been removed from the Meadowlands and have been moved to the concrete pit.
— Jim from Brooklyn
20. July 2, 2009 1:36 pm
Who measures concrete pours in “gallons”?

— A. Rogers
21. July 2, 2009 2:11 pm
From Eli Attia’s Septmeber 2002 article, “WTC Rebuild Needs Your Input (referring to architects) or Outcome Will Be Disaster”:
“All the LMDC/PA have done is to waste time and money (over six months and more than $80 million to date, not to mention the costs that will be incurred because of the delays in restoring lower Manhattan to full functionality) while continuing to exercise total control of what will be designed on ground zero, how it will be designed, and by whom”.
Kurt Anderson in his article,”Ground Zero to Sixty”, May, 2005, says:
“Libeskind’s original design for a spiraling asymmetrical Freedom Tower was abandoned almost two years ago when he was forced by Pataki, his patron, into a doomed viciously dysfunctional parttnreship with David Childs, the WTC hired architect from Skidmore Owings and Merrill.
It was a wasted opportunity when Giuliani let Pataki take control of the rebuilding - a cynical, mistaken trade of the city’s interests for presumed Republican partisan advantage.
It was a wasted opportunity when Pataki and Bloomberg did not use the extraordinary, whatever-it-takes spirit after 9/11 to purge the 900 pound gorillas ( the PA and its WTC leaseholder, Larry Silverstein) by buying off Silverstein…”
Michael Frazier of Newsday wrote in Sept. 2008 that “Bloomberg has never supported the corporation created by Gov. Pataki and ex-mayor Giuliani”, and asked that “Gov. Paterson…dismantle the LMDC and place the city in charge of the state-run agency’s development role to help quicken construction.”
And from the Daily News, August 2008 - “Cost of 9/11 Memorial and Museum at Ground Zero Expected to Hit $1 Billion”
“That’s a hefty 65% increase over the $610 million price tag that planners have repeatedly cited for the last two years”.
As far as the rebuilding politics of ground zero and delays that have ensued being influenced or caused by family members, that excuse expired many years ago.

— THB

Daquan13

July 2nd, 2009, 03:15 PM

Of course you know that some of those comments are from anti-Freedom Tower advocates, especially Kyle David who's been bitching, ranting and raving for the Twins to be rebuilt & others, who has been spewing off about wanting the Twins rebuilt.

They are just trying to complain the former towers back into existence. And they are acting like spoiled and selfish little children. But it's getting them nowhere. :p

BiggieSmalls

July 2nd, 2009, 06:10 PM

REJOICE REJOICE!!! WE HAVE A WEB CAM BACK!!

the to the RGZ team.. it's a little higher on the building now but refreshes every minute or so.

http://www.rebuildgroundzero.org/modules/mod_webcam_pop_up.php?refresh=60&altText=Groud+Zero+Webcam+-+Rebuild+Ground+Zero+.org&camImgY=768&camImgX=960&imageurl=http://rebuildgroundzero.org/webcam/rgz_000.jpg

Daquan13

July 3rd, 2009, 11:48 AM

Great shot, Biggie!! Thanks!

The foundation work for Tower 4 seems to be going well. :)

EugeneNYC

July 6th, 2009, 12:16 PM

New pics added to WTC.com: http://www.wtc.com/media/images/wtc-construction

scumonkey

July 6th, 2009, 03:48 PM

Silverstein Goes to the Mattresses! Takes Legal Action To End WTC Stalemate (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/silverstein-goes-mattresses-takes-legal-action-end-wtc-stalemate)

By Eliot Brown (http://www.observer.com/author/eliot-brown/)
July 6, 2009 | 1:11 p.m
The private developer of three buildings at the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein, is taking a legal action to break an impasse (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/stalemate-city-primer-world-trade-center-imbroglio) over the rebuilding of the site destroyed in 2001. The move is a significant change in course, as it comes after the top elected officials in the city and state attempted, and failed (http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/bloomberg-and-silver-strange-bedfellows-wtc-offensive-against-port-authority), to broker a revised deal amid the economic crisis.
In a letter sent Monday to other stakeholders involved with the project, Mr. Silverstein claims the Port Authority, which owns the site, is in default on numerous aspects of its development agreement. The letter starts the formalized arbitration process, which will ultimately put the matter before a three-person panel to rule on the issue.
It seems Mr. Silverstein is hoping that arbitration will provide a broad resolution for the project. The economic crisis has made it impossible to finance Mr. Silverstein’s three planned towers, and he has refused to start construction on two of his towers, a move that would further delay other portions of the site, including the PATH terminal and the museum.
In the recent set of talks—called by Mayor Bloomberg—and in the letter to officials, Mr. Silverstein has been driven by a contention that the delays under the Port Authority’s watch (of which there have been many) have made it impossible for him to get financing. Port Authority officials have denied this as, even before the delays were announced, the lending markets were clamped tightly, and the economic crisis that began last fall made it impossible to build any large speculative office space, delays or not.
“If not for the Port’s failures, the project clearly would be much, much further along – and we would have had the opportunity to finance in a much more positive economic climate,” Mr. Silverstein wrote in Monday's letter. “The agency has failed to make good on these promises, repeatedly dragging its heels in the negotiations. And despite the new schedule announced in October 2008, the Port Authority hasn’t accelerated its key projects at the site. The Port has no realistic schedule for its construction work and no integrated logistics plan.”
He said he has been left with “no choice but to utilize the agreed procedures” for a “swift” arbitration to set a new course. This would seem to imply that Mr. Silverstein wants substantial monetary damages from the Port Authority.
“We believe [arbitration] provides perhaps the last and best hope for providing a fair and equitable outcome that everyone can live with, and – most important - for finally getting the World Trade Center rebuilt.”
Below is the letter from Mr. Silverstein. He also sent a formal letter (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17138692/Notice-of-WTC-Dispute-070609) along with a May letter (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17138690/Notice-of-Port-Authority-Breaches-050809) that he sent to the Port Authority accusing it of numerous breaches in its contract with his firm.
The question now becomes just how much can be resolved in arbitration. While Mr. Silverstein seems to be working under the impression that it can expeditiously deliver him what he wants, the Port Authority believes the scope of the arbitration is too limited to do so, according to a Port Authority official. If the Port Authority position proves right, the next step would likely be litigation, should Mr. Silverstein choose to go there.
Update: 3:05 p.m.
In a statement, Port Authority executive director Chris Ward sought to brush aside concerns that the arbitration would lead to any real resolution, saying the agency is "meeting all of its obligations, and we look forward to a quick arbitration decision."
He called for Silverstein to accept one of the Port Authority's solutions to the site, which generally involve the agency helping finance one tower, not two, as Mr. Silverstein has been seeking.
"We are certain that SPI understands that an arbitration decision under the MDA will not resolve when there will be a market for two private office towers on the site, and how this speculative private office space should be financed," Mr. Ward said in the statement. "A resolution to these issues can only be accomplished through good faith negotiations, not a legal fight."
Mayor Bloomberg also chimed in, lobbing some fighting words at the Port Authority by criticizing the agency's insistence that financing two of Mr. Silverstein's towers would decimate its regional transportation efforts. From a statement his office just e-mailed:

After the negotiations between the Port Authority and Silverstein broke down, we brought the parties back to the table to avoid a stalemate. Unfortunately, not everyone worked as hard as necessary to find a solution. No one disputes that the Port Authority is engaged in many projects important to our region, but pitting those projects against the development of the World Trade Center site creates a false choice.

Link to article & Larry's letter (found at bottom):
http://www.observer.com/2009/real-estate/silverstein-goes-mattresses-takes-legal-action-end-wtc-stalemate

Daquan13

July 6th, 2009, 04:27 PM

Way to go, Silverstein!! Put the screws to them!!

Those SOB's have played their damn stalling tactics games all too often, and it's high time that they man up or shut up!!! :mad: :)

CitiesfromSpace

July 6th, 2009, 04:57 PM

Alright, good. The PA's been embarrassing us for way to long.

HoveringCheesecake

July 6th, 2009, 10:21 PM

From my view at the Millennium Hilton I could tell that they appeared to be using the Tower 3 site as a staging area for equipment while still excavating dirt from the Tower 2 site.

NYatKNIGHT

July 7th, 2009, 10:12 AM

T3 is a staging area for T4. T2 isn't removing its own dirt anymore, that dirt comes from the hub site and is removed from the crane over the T2 site. So both sites are being used while they battle behind the scenes.

HoveringCheesecake

July 7th, 2009, 10:36 AM

Ah. The dirt was in the hole so I assumed it was part of T2.

It was kind of sad seeing the remnants of the basement being demolished and torn apart. I just hope the new complex ends up being built in its entirety.

And since I'm not sure where to put these shots, I'll put them here. They're a nice overview of the site.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2527/3698581052_4ba13c3ba8_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34471641@N07/3698581052/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2601/3698583688_560531158a_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34471641@N07/3698583688/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3658/3697774371_38170bb3c3_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34471641@N07/3697774371/

BiggieSmalls

July 7th, 2009, 01:11 PM

NICE SHOTS!!!!

Looks like the Pit Crawler crane is just about ready to come out.. cant me down there for more than a few more days at this rate.

Daquan13

July 7th, 2009, 10:17 PM

What is that tower that's u/c behind the DBB?

GreenwichBoy

July 8th, 2009, 01:05 AM

^^^ W Hotel Downtown aka 123 Washington Street.

Daquan13

July 8th, 2009, 02:07 AM

Thank you.

DarrylStrawberry

July 8th, 2009, 05:13 PM

Great pictures meh_cd!

Did you take the helicopter tour?

HoveringCheesecake

July 8th, 2009, 08:03 PM

Thanks. Yes, I did. Worth every penny.

TonyO

July 10th, 2009, 08:31 AM

NY Times
July 10, 2009

Plan Offered to Finance Trade Center

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey made a proposal this week that it said could break the long impasse at ground zero and allow the developer Larry A. Silverstein to build two skyscrapers on the 16-acre site, providing he can raise $625 million.

But it does not appear that the proposal will lead to an immediate cessation of hostilities between the two sides or of the acrimony between the authority and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who is concerned that the dispute could eventually halt work on the World Trade Center site.

For the first time, the authority, which owns the site, agreed to guarantee financing for both of Mr. Silverstein’s office towers, which are to be built along Church Street, at an estimated cost of $4.2 billion, according to a letter on Monday from the Port Authority to the Bloomberg administration and the office of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

But up to $1.2 billion in financing for the second tower would come only after Mr. Silverstein raised $625 million from investors or lenders, according to the proposal.

The letter, from Christopher O. Ward, the authority’s executive director, was sent to City Hall on the same day that Mr. Silverstein sought to start an arbitration process, angrily claiming that the Port Authority had violated the development agreement at ground zero.

A spokesman for Mr. Silverstein declined to comment on Thursday. He does not view the proposal as a credible offer, according to an official who spoke with him

“I don’t believe it moves the ball forward,” said Mr. Silver, whose district includes Lower Manhattan. “I don’t believe it gets us closer to a deal.”

Mr. Silver, a consistent supporter of Mr. Silverstein, and Mayor Bloomberg organized a summit meeting in May in a so-far unsuccessful effort to broker a resolution.

Andrew Brent, a spokesman for Deputy Mayor Robert C. Lieber, who leads the city’s negotiating team, declined to comment on the proposal, citing an agreement among the parties not to negotiate in public. But two officials who had been briefed on the new proposal said that it was a step in the right direction, although they noted what they called some serious flaws.

One flaw, one of the officials said, is that the financial structure would make it nearly impossible for Mr. Silverstein to raise $625 million in the credit markets, where there is little money available for real estate projects.

The official said he hoped that the authority would be “flexible.”

The authority has been reluctant to finance more speculative office space at a time when rents are down and tenants scarce.

Under a 2006 development agreement, Mr. Silverstein was to finance the towers with insurance money, tax-free bonds and private borrowing.

Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the authority, declined to discuss the proposal in detail, but said: “We have said all along that we will protect our limited public resources for the public projects on the site and the other vital transportation needs of the region.”

Daquan13

July 10th, 2009, 12:47 PM

That's good. But we'll see what else happens.

BiggieSmalls

July 11th, 2009, 12:28 PM

looks like they are stripping away the steel work from Above Fulton Street today.

I dont get that move.

And it also look like -- from the earthcam -- that they are starting to poor the memorial parapets.. the north pool is coming along.

but how are they going to work Fulton street in as a construction access corridor with the digging of the east/west connector and the temporary bridge just to the west?

DMAG

July 16th, 2009, 05:51 PM

For those that have not figured it out, the HD webcam is (sort of in smaller form) available here:

http://www.national911memorial.org/site/PageServer?pagename=New_Visit_EarthCam

EugeneNYC

July 16th, 2009, 06:32 PM

I like this one more:

http://www.earthcam.com/swf/cam_player/enlarge_image.php?type=live&path=http://archives.earthcam.com/archives5/ecnetwork/us/ny/nyc/gzmpr/gzrobotic1.jpg&portrait=false&rotate=false&name=Live%20Aerial%20View&width=704&height=480&img_width=352&img_height=240

This works well when you zoom in on it with your browser (hold Ctrl and scroll up with your mouse).

HoveringCheesecake

July 16th, 2009, 06:52 PM

Or this:

http://archives.earthcam.com/archives5/ecnetwork/us/ny/nyc/gzmpr/gzrobotic1.jpg

Three links for the same camera. Heh.

Merry

July 24th, 2009, 04:10 AM

Rosie the Riveter redux:
Women work it at W.T.C.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_326/rrbi.jpg

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_326/xr.jpg
Tanya Ridley, a metal lather, hoists a rod of rebar at Tower 4 at the World Trade Center site.

By Julie Shapiro

Ashia Johns goes to work every day wearing a white hard hat on her head and a flashy white-gold diamond ring on her left hand.
The hard hat keeps her safe as she builds the new Goldman Sachs headquarters Downtown. The engagement ring look-alike, which Johns bought for herself, also keeps her safe — from the attentions of the dozens of men she works with.

“I wear the ring as a decoy,” Johns said, laughing as she ate lunch on the edge of the construction site on a recent afternoon. “They don’t really bother me,” she said of her male co-workers. “I just use [the ring] to throw them off.”

Johns, 35, is one of the rare women who choose carpentry as a career. For every 65 male carpenters, there is only one female carpenter, according to a 2008 U.S. Dept. of Labor study. Other trades are even more skewed toward men — in the same 2008 study, the most unbalanced of all professions in the country was bricklaying, which boasted only one woman for every 230 men.

On the whole, women represent 2.5 percent of the total workers in the construction and excavation industry, up from 2.1 percent 20 years ago, the Dept. of Labor said.

In Lower Manhattan, where so much construction has flooded the neighborhood that the city and state created a command center to keep track of it all, the numbers do not appear to be much different, though no one collects the statistics. Women at several large construction sites said they work with hundreds of men but just a handful of women.

The Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center runs several programs to attract women and minorities to work sites Downtown, including classes and job placement assistance.

“It’s not a man’s world anymore,” said Beverly Bobb, who manages the command center’s equal-opportunity programs. “If a woman can do it, why not?”

While Bobb said women remain very much in the minority and occasionally face harassment or poor work conditions, those who spoke to Downtown Express this month did not describe an atmosphere of negativity or discrimination. The biggest challenges of the job come not from their minority status but from the job itself, the women said.

Arlene Fisher, a surveyor at One World Trade Center, the Freedom Tower, said the most difficult thing she has to do is navigate the red tape associated with rebuilding ground zero.

“It’s different than any of the other jobs I’ve worked on,” Fisher said. “The chain of command is longer than normal… It takes 10 times as long to get anything done.”

Fisher, 39, spoke of her male co-workers with affection and a trace of condescension.

“Believe it or not, the guys on construction sites have good manners,” she said. Her one problem is that “They just don’t listen,” she said. “But most of the guys are well-trained,” she added. “They don’t like to see me get mad.”

Fisher, who is divorced and has two young children, started working in construction nine years ago after growing frustrated with her low-paying job as a special-education teacher. Now she spends most days outside, and on a recent afternoon she was using a laser to measure whether a concrete wall around the Freedom Tower’s core was perfectly straight and exactly where it was supposed to be.

Fisher and others described the salary — an average of nearly $50,000 a year for a full-fledged union member, plus benefits, according to a women’s advocacy group — as the biggest perk of the job.
The promise of good money drew Estelle St. Clair into a carpenters’ union in 1999, when she was out of work and had a 5-year-old son to care for.

“I did it at first for the income, but now a lot of the work fascinates me,” said St. Clair, who is building Tower 4 at the World Trade Center site. “Looking at the massive structures in New York, it makes you interested in how they get done, start to finish.”

On a recent morning, St. Clair, 35, strode across Tower 4’s partially completed floors with a pink bandana beneath her hardhat and the remnants of pink polish on her fingernails. St. Clair spoke with pride as she pointed out the recently poured concrete and the rows of steel reinforcements, then she worked with several men to build a structure that would support a new concrete floor for the next level up.

When St. Clair was first starting out in construction, some guys told her they wouldn’t work with concrete, because it was too dangerous. St. Clair was a little nervous, too, and she had to master her fear of heights so she could build skyscrapers.

“You’re outside in the fresh air, and there are new things to do every day,” St. Clair said. “Sometimes it’s a little scary.” She paused. “I love it,” she said.

St. Clair got so comfortable with being high up off the ground that on her last project, the Bank of America tower in Midtown, her supervisor had to remind her whenever she got too close to the edge of the building — she was so absorbed in her work that she barely noticed.
As for the men she works with, St. Clair said she rarely has problems.

“Sometimes at first, on a new job, they’ll say, ‘Can we ask her to do this? Is she willing?’” St. Clair said. “But once they see you jump in and you try, everyone loosens up some.”
Tanya Ridley, a metal lather and the only other female hard hat at Tower 4, said her favorite part of the job is its hands-on usefulness.

“You work hard, you get dirty, you know it’s worth it,” she said, grinning.

Ridley, 32, said she doesn’t mind being one of the only women on the site, and the men she works with don’t seem to mind either.
“If I’m not as strong as they are physically, I’m willing to work hard to get it done, just like anyone else,” she said.

Ridley initially worked as a secretary and a receptionist after high school, unaware that construction was even an option. Women are funneled into college, the military or low-paying, unrewarding jobs like home healthcare, she said, when the building trades might be a better fit.
Ridley may never have broken into construction at all, but two years ago she heard about a Chelsea group called Nontraditional Employment for Women.

NEW runs six-week training programs designed to launch women into careers in construction and other building, transportation and energy trades. Participants brush up on math skills, learn to read blueprints and practice toting 63-pound buckets up flights of stairs. NEW trained nearly 500 women last year, most of them lower-income minorities, and has been encouraging women to work in construction since 1978. Ridley did the program in 2007 and said it gave her the skills she needed to get a union job.

“Things are changing,” said Kathleen Culhane, vice president of programs at NEW. “Doors are opening like never before… . Today, it’s not such a rarity to see not only one woman but a handful of women on a job site, working in construction.”

On a Friday afternoon last month, NEW held a graduation for 12 women who had just completed the six-week program. The brief but boisterously heartfelt ceremony took place on the third floor of NEW’s W. 20th St. building, beneath posters reading “Celebrate Men Working With Women” and images of NEW’s logo, which looks like the symbol for “female” with a hammer instead of the “T.”
As each woman’s name was called to receive a completion certificate, the others cheered, making up for the lack of friends and family members in the very small audience.

(Before the ceremony started, one of the NEW leaders asked if any of the women were waiting on a guest. “It’s just us,” one of the students replied. Pointing to her fellow graduates, she added, “My guest is right here.”)

After impromptu speeches that left nearly everyone in tears, the graduates ate pizza and reflected on the demanding six weeks behind them and their plans for the future.

Taja Brown, 28, hopes to join a union so she can continue working in construction but get paid better wages. When she was 19, she helped her father fix up a house, and she fell in love with the work. Since then, she’s been getting jobs wherever she can.
“I like the looks I get in Home Depot,” Brown said, especially when she’s picking out an unusual tool or material. “People stare, like, ‘What do you know about that?’”

Brown once picked up a customer that way — a man saw her looking at tools in the tiling section, and she wound up tiling his entire basement. Brown has gotten some tiling jobs partly because she’s female, since customers expect her to be more detailed and precise, she said.
“But a lot of people assume I can’t do it,” Brown added. “I like to show them and prove them wrong.”

There is no typical NEW student. Other members of the graduating class included Cerise Bunch, a freckled 40-year-old woman from the Bronx, and Ruth Zuniga, a 20-year-old from Spanish Harlem. Bunch has an engineering degree but can’t find a job, so she decided to give the blue-collar industry a shot. She hopes to work for Con Edison or the Fire Dept. Zuniga had to complete her G.E.D. so she could apply to NEW, and now she wants to work as a bricklayer.

One of the only parents to attend the graduation was Stephanie Spencer, whose daughter Rashida Johnson, 26, had just completed the program. Johnson graduated collage and had worked in public relations but was laid off, her mother said.

“It’s wonderful that she’s getting a chance to go out there in the world and compete with guys,” Spencer said. “Women coming into construction, electrical, plumbing work — this is the last frontier, so good for them.”

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_326/rosie.html

CitiesfromSpace

July 24th, 2009, 10:33 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/24/2009-07-24_port_authority_to_silverstein_build_towers_or_l ose_them.html

lofter1

July 24th, 2009, 11:52 AM

Hmmmm ...

32 Weeks of Penalties @ $300K / day = ~ $67,000,000 + $132,000,000 (Late Fees) = ~ $200,000,000 paid by PA > Silverstein for sites of Towers 2 & 3.

No wonder they're gleeful in their scheme to squash him.

Can Larry make this happen / finesse the situation so he comes out on top?

Alonzo-ny

July 24th, 2009, 11:55 AM

I think Larry has a good case in that the PA's delays has made it impossible for him to get financing.

lofter1

July 24th, 2009, 12:01 PM

The lawyers get richer and richer ...

ramvid01

July 24th, 2009, 01:05 PM

He definitely has a good case. 4 months of delay is big, considering how the markets dropped so quickly to the point where one day you could get a loan and the next you couldn't even get a loan for 20% of the property.

CitiesfromSpace

July 24th, 2009, 02:46 PM

Yeah, this definitely won't stop the arbitration. Could one of the outcomes of the arbitration be an extension of his timeline to build beyond his current 5 year window?

BiggieSmalls

July 24th, 2009, 06:36 PM

Does anyone have a picture of the wood retaining wall that the PA needs to mvoe in order for SPI to get started on Tower 3?

Seems they'vwe a lot of work to do to clear the Old Path station site though that work has picked up in recent weeks.

Travis

July 25th, 2009, 04:08 AM

Going by the webcam that retaining wall is almost done being relocated.

EugeneNYC

July 28th, 2009, 05:19 PM

Not sure if this was posted already: http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/milestones.html

Daquan13

July 28th, 2009, 06:34 PM

Well, at least there aren't any glitches, hopefully, for a while.
For the western half of Ground Zero. :)

Sherpa

July 28th, 2009, 11:43 PM

Not sure if this was posted already: http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/milestones.html

Shift them milestones out at least a year.

kz1000ps

August 4th, 2009, 12:05 AM

Developer Rejects Paterson’s Proposals for Ground Zero Towers

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: August 3, 2009

The Port Authority and the developer Larry A. Silverstein took one step closer on Monday to a standstill at ground zero, after Mr. Silverstein essentially rejected proposals from the governor for resolving the impasse over building office towers on the 16-acre site.

The developer said that proposals by Gov. David A. Paterson were unlikely to lead to building two of three skyscrapers planned for the World Trade Center site, the solution sought by Mr. Silverstein, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Work is progressing on the first of Mr. Silverstein’s office towers. But he and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which leases the building sites to Mr. Silverstein, have been at odds for months over how to pay for the other towers at a time when there are no tenants on the horizon and no private financing available.

Mr. Silverstein, who has received more than $150 million in development fees but invested little of his own money, has insisted that the Port Authority finance two of the three office buildings. But both Mr. Paterson and the authority have been reluctant to invest in speculative office towers.

Mr. Paterson said in a letter to Mr. Silverstein on Monday that if the developer was unwilling to invest more than $75 million in the multibillion-dollar project, he should just proceed with the first tower, which is economically viable. He could then build retail centers and the underground portions of the other two buildings while waiting for tenants and additional financing.

“Our initial review indicates that these ideas will not likely put us on a path to a two-building solution,” Janno Lieber, who oversees the World Trade Center project for Mr. Silverstein, said in a statement Monday.

Both Mr. Silver and the mayor, who had been involved in an earlier attempt to resolve the dispute, quickly issued statements saying that Mr. Paterson’s proposals would not work.

“The path suggested by the governor will not get us there,” Mr. Silver said.

Andrew Brent, a spokesman for the mayor, said, “From the beginning, we’ve said both parties would have to compromise to avoid stalemate and further delays on the site.”

But in what has become a very public dispute, Mr. Paterson said in his letter that if Mr. Silverstein failed to come to terms over securing financing for the office towers, the governor would direct the authority to build all the public components of the trade center without him.

The city, state and Port Authority expect Mr. Silverstein to demand binding arbitration later this month under a 2006 development agreement. That process could take months, or even a year, possibly leading to further delays for other projects at the trade center site, including the memorial and the transit center.

Real estate executives who have spoken to Mr. Silverstein say that he would seek hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, arguing that the authority has undermined his ability to build the office towers because it is significantly behind schedule in rebuilding Greenwich Street, the $3.2 billion transit hub and a vehicle security center.

In his statement Monday, Mr. Lieber criticized the authority’s “chronic failures on the site.”

But in a move that would seem to undercut Mr. Silverstein’s bargaining position, officials at the Port Authority said they expected to finally complete the preliminary site work for the developer’s second and third towers and turn over the land by next Monday. The authority has been paying Mr. Silverstein $300,000 a day — a total of more than $100 million — in penalties since July 2008 because of the delays.

The Port Authority was never supposed to finance the office towers. Under the 2006 agreement, Mr. Silverstein was to build the three towers with a combination of insurance money, tax-free bonds and private financing. But the once-booming real estate market has all but collapsed. The downtown vacancy rate at office buildings is expected to climb sharply this year, and most executives say it would be a mistake to build a lot of new office space, although few are willing to say so publicly for fear of angering the mayor.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/nyregion/04wtc.html?ref=nyregion)

lofter1

August 4th, 2009, 12:38 AM

It seems Larry doesn't believe in the old adage "Put your money where your mouth is" or that he has much faith that the construction of towers 2 & 3 is the right thing to do at this time. Sure, he'll build them with PANYNJ money, but not via his own financing / funding as he agreed to in 2006 (despite the fact taht he's netted $150M + for the wrongs of the PA). His current game playing is revealing him to be something of a selfish schmuck who likes to play hardball. Maybe it is best to force him to his knees.

Developer Rejects Paterson’s Proposals for Ground Zero Towers

... Mr. Silverstein, who has received more than $150 million in development fees but invested little of his own money, has insisted that the Port Authority finance two of the three office buildings. But both Mr. Paterson and the authority have been reluctant to invest in speculative office towers.

Mr. Paterson said in a letter to Mr. Silverstein on Monday that if the developer was unwilling to invest more than $75 million in the multibillion-dollar project, he should just proceed with the first tower, which is economically viable. He could then build retail centers and the underground portions of the other two buildings while waiting for tenants and additional financing ...

But in a move that would seem to undercut Mr. Silverstein’s bargaining position, officials at the Port Authority said they expected to finally complete the preliminary site work for the developer’s second and third towers and turn over the land by next Monday. The authority has been paying Mr. Silverstein $300,000 a day — a total of more than $100 million — in penalties since July 2008 because of the delays.

... The Port Authority was never supposed to finance the office towers. Under the 2006 agreement, Mr. Silverstein was to build the three towers with a combination of insurance money, tax-free bonds and private financing.

BrooklynLove

August 4th, 2009, 07:04 AM

The Port Authority was never supposed to finance the office towers. Under the 2006 agreement, Mr. Silverstein was to build the three towers with a combination of insurance money, tax-free bonds and private financing. But the once-booming real estate market has all but collapsed.

If this was completely accurate then there would be no fight here.

ZippyTheChimp

August 4th, 2009, 08:55 AM

It is completely accurate.

The fight is whether or not actions by the PA have made it impossible for Silverstein to carry out the agreement. Or whether economic conditions have had the greater impact.

lofter1

August 4th, 2009, 09:16 AM

It could be viewed that actions of the PA actually saved LS from financial ruin. If he'd fully controlled WTC 2 & 3 in July 2008 as previously planned then those LS self-financed projects would have been stalled for the better part of the past year during which he'd have been scrambling to bail himself out. LS should be thanking his lucky stars and show some humility and at least try to do the right thing. Instead he seems to be figuring out the best way to line his own pockets at the expense of the rest of us and in desregard to common sense.

It's a big stretch to claim (despite he fact that he's pocketed $100M in penalties, which he apparently and oddly refuses to kick into the project) that, due to these supposed hardships, the LS controlled projects should now be financed by PA money. And btw: isn't that, in essence, the taxpayers' money?.

Pride goeth you know where.

lofter1

August 4th, 2009, 09:21 AM

If general state of economics can be used as a defense to alter a contract then let's all give that one a try next time the rent / mortgage payment / dinner check comes around.

Me to waiter: "I'd love to pay the $150 for our delicious filet mignon dinner for two, but the collapse of the ecomony during the past two hours makes it impossible. If you could please slide me $100 I'll gladly consider returning for another tasty meal."

TREPYE

August 4th, 2009, 09:28 AM

^^^So IYO the fight is....

Silverstein has shown himself once again to be a typical grimeball NYC developer and hence a more direct eveolutionary decendant of rats than a normal human being. This POS is trying to get his cake and eat it. If this had been a regular site and he would have normally leased it and developed it he would have had to taken his lumps and gut out the economic downturn. But since he knows that his counterparts at the PA are a bunch of incompentents he sniffing around is trying to expliot their abject ineptitude to minimize his risks. But he doesnt mind risking the further healing of this open wound on NYC landscape. Dirtbag.

There he goes, Larry Silverstein, <sigh!:rolleyes::mad:> like that sewer rat you see in the subway track sniffing around for that discarded crumb.

lofter1

August 4th, 2009, 09:33 AM

You paint the scene much more clearly than I ever could have ;)

lofter1

August 4th, 2009, 11:25 AM

Ay yi yi ...

Secret report: Ground Zero Freedom Tower construction lags, slated for 2018 finish

NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/04/2009-08-04_touted_ground_zero_construction_projects_years_ off_schedule__report_behind_the_t.html)
BY DOUGLAS FEIDEN
August 4th 2009

A secret report predicts the Freedom Tower - billed as America's defiant answer to terrorism - won't be finished until 17 years after the 9/11 attacks.

A 2018 opening for the iconic, 1,776-foot building would come more than four years after the opening date the Port Authority trumpeted just 10 months ago, the government report found.

The July 14 "confidential draft...risk analysis" by the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center (LMCCC) found that every blockbuster project at Ground Zero has fallen years behind time lines the PA unveiled in October.

The report says the grandiose transportation hub may not be ready until 2018, while the Sept. 11 Memorial, the site's emotional centerpiece, could be two years behind its 2011 deadline.

The report contradicts the "aggressive yet realistic schedules" PA boss Chris Ward gave Gov. Paterson.

Virtually every one of those dates has turned out to be unrealistic, said the LMCCC, which reports to Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg.

"The covenant with the people of lower Manhattan has been broken," said Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who reviewed the report at the request of the Daily News. "Ground Zero has been left to look like an unfinished parking lot, and that's an international scandal of epic proportions."

The PA strongly defended its work.

"The dates are wrong," chief spokesman Stephen Sigmund said. "Our comprehensive analysis, completed every month, shows we are on schedule to meet the completion dates we released last October."

The LMCCC refused to discuss details, saying its work was a "preliminary draft...for discussion purposes only" and that its dates "should not be considered valid until the ongoing review process is completed."

The revelations came as Paterson slapped an ultimatum on developer Larry Silverstein yesterday, saying the PA was preparing to redevelop the 16-acre site without him if necessary.

The LMCCC didn't address the budget-busting impact of blown deadlines on a project that's billions in the hole. But the contrast between LMCCC and other versions of Ground Zero reality is stark:

>> FREEDOM TOWER: The PA insists the 102-story, $3.1 billion Freedom Tower will be finished by December 2013. The LMCCC says there's an 80% probability the signature tower will open by January 2018 - and a 20% chance it will debut even later. There's a 50-50 chance it could open in November 2016.

>> THE MEMORIAL: Sept. 11 Memorial President Joe Daniels is confident the memorial will open permanently, with operating waterfalls, by Sept. 11, 2011. The PA promised a partial opening by then.

The LMCCC said the twin reflecting pools may not be operational in time for the 10th anniversary in 2011 - or even 2012.

It also predicted an 80% chance the plaza won't be finished until May 2013 and warned that the opening could be delayed as late as January 2014.

>> TRANSPORTATION HUB: The PA has repeatedly promised a June 2014 opening of the sprawling PATH terminal. The LMCCC says most likely it won't be finished until September 2018, more than four years later.

© 2009 Daily News, L.P. All rights reserved

OmegaNYC

August 4th, 2009, 11:32 AM

Sad.

Alonzo-ny

August 4th, 2009, 11:46 AM

I find that hard to believe, the tower looks ready to start shooting up. There would have to be a disaster for it to take 9 years from now for it to be open.

lofter1

August 4th, 2009, 11:55 AM

Don't even think about. Just look at some pics and imagine it being done ...

Photo Gallery:

World Trade Center Construction Update (http://www.wcbs880.com/pages/4933003.php) - 8/3/2009

Photographs from the World Trade Center site (Ground Zero)
in Lower Manhattan on Monday, August 3, 2009.

Note this:

The superstructure of One World Trade Center (formerly known at the Freedom Tower) is seen (R) on Ground Zero August 3, 2009 in New York City. .

Sherpa

August 4th, 2009, 11:56 AM

The July 14 "confidential draft...risk analysis" by the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center (LMCCC) (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Lower+Manhattan+Construction+Command+Center) found that every blockbuster project at Ground Zero has fallen years behind time lines the PA unveiled in October.
The report says the grandiose transportation hub may not be ready until 2018, while the Sept. 11 Memorial, the site's emotional centerpiece, could be two years behind its 2011 deadline.
The report contradicts the "aggressive yet realistic schedules" PA boss Chris Ward (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Chris+Ward) gave Gov. Paterson (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/David+Paterson).
Virtually every one of those dates has turned out to be unrealistic, said the LMCCC, which reports to Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Michael+Bloomberg).
"The covenant with the people of lower Manhattan (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Manhattan) has been broken," said Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Scott+Stringer), who reviewed the report at the request of the Daily News. "Ground Zero has been left to look like an unfinished parking lot, and that's an international scandal of epic proportions."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/04/2009-08-04_touted_ground_zero_construction_projects_years_ off_schedule__report_behind_the_t.html#ixzz0NEL75M P8 (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/04/2009-08-04_touted_ground_zero_construction_projects_years_ off_schedule__report_behind_the_t.html#ixzz0NEL75M P8)

HoveringCheesecake

August 4th, 2009, 04:26 PM

At least build *one* more of the towers. Please? What a sad, sad mess.

Travis

August 4th, 2009, 04:55 PM

I can imagine the scene at Daily News:

"Hey, this report says they might not get the new uprated dehumidifiers until 2018!"

"Freedom Tower delayed until 2018! That's our headline, run with it!"

"We sure are evil boss."

"Yep."

scumonkey

August 4th, 2009, 07:17 PM

From Crains:
August 04, 2009 3:35 PM
Silverstein to seek arbitration over Ground Zero

Developer informs Port Authority he wants a binding resolution over funding of office towers, in a move seen as likely to further delay completion of the World Trade Center site.

By Theresa Agovino (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/personalia?ID=123)
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CN&Date=20090804&Category=FREE&ArtNo=908049979&Ref=AR&maxw=319&border=0 (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CN&Date=20090804&Category=FREE&ArtNo=908049979&Ref=AR&maxw=800) [+] (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CN&Date=20090804&Category=FREE&ArtNo=908049979&Ref=AR&maxw=800) Photo by Buck Ennis

Developer Larry Silverstein informed the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey on Tuesday that he was pressing ahead with binding arbitration in an attempt to break the impasse with the agency over funding two of his towers at Ground Zero, after months of negotiation failed to produce a solution.
“One way or another, we must resolve, once and for all, the disputes that have arisen as a result of the Port Authority’s continued and admitted delays ,” Mr. Silverstein said in a statement.
The move is likely to exacerbate the mounting tensions between the two sides and will potentially stretch out the timeline for completing the site. Just two weeks ago, Gov. David Paterson announced he would personally negotiate with Mr. Silverstein in an effort to avoid arbitration, which he said could take six to nine months. Mr. Silverstein said the arbitration would begin in September, and sources said he didn't expect it to take anywhere near six months. A spokesman for Mr. Silverstein declined to say how much he was seeking in damages in the arbitration, but in the past, the developer has made a point of saying he has paid $2.75 billion in rent to the Port.
Negotiations can continue during arbitration, but Mr. Paterson had noted that under such circumstances, the two sides would be at each other’s throats.
The development comes a day after Mr. Paterson told Mr. Silverstein that the Port was working on designs so the public part of the site could be rebuilt even if the developer doesn’t move ahead. Much of the site’s infrastructure is intertwined, so adjustments will be necessary if Mr. Silverstein doesn’t begin building at least the lower portions of his towers. One is currently under construction.
The action also follows the revelation that in a preliminary report, the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center found that every major project at the site was woefully behind schedule. For example, the report said there was only an 80% chance that the Freedom Tower will open by 2018. Ten months ago, the Port Authority said the tower would be finished by the end of 2013.
Likewise, the Port promised that part of the Sept. 11 Memorial would be open by the 10th anniversary of the attacks. The report predicted that there was an 80% chance that the memorial’s plaza wouldn’t be finished until May 2013, and that it could be delayed until January 2014. The report was first published in the New York [I]Daily News.
In a statement, the Command Center said that the report was only preliminary, and that these dates should not be considered valid until the ongoing review process is completed. A Command Center spokeswoman couldn’t say when that would be.
A Port Authority spokesman says they are on track to meet the deadlines the agency laid out last October in a revised schedule.
Nonetheless, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg expressed outrage about the report, calling the prospect of additional and significant delays “simply unacceptable.” He noted when the Port released its revised schedule, it also promised long-needed transparency about progress at the site. He insisted that the agency hasn’t delivered on its pledges to detail whether it was meeting its goals.
“We must see immediate changes, starting with genuine, independent and constant oversight of the Port Authority’s progress,” said the mayor, who attempted to broker a compromise between the agency and the developer before ultimately siding with Mr. Silverstein. He called for the Command Center to stop receiving funding from the Port and to provide regular public audits on the site.
Mr. Silverstein has said that chronic problems and delays at the site interfered with his ability to construct his three towers and caused him to miss out on financing that would have been relatively easy to obtain in 2007.
Now credit markets are virtually closed, so Mr. Silverstein asked the Port to guarantee more than $3 billion so he can build two of his three towers. The Port agreed to aid with one but said it would help with the other only if Mr. Silverstein put up $600 million first. The agency has said that putting more money into a private real estate venture would be too risky and would take funds away from funding other key projects.
In a statement, the Port Authority’s executive director, Chris Ward, said that Mr. Silverstein has now rejected four offers, so it’s clear that he will accept nothing less than two fully subsidized office buildings, which is “irresponsible and unacceptable. This arbitration process cannot distract from that fundamental point—that [Silverstein Properties] would rather have public dollars at risk in place of its own private investment.”
Mr. Ward said that many other developers have had to put their projects on hold because of the economic recession. He added that Mr. Silverstein was not supposed to get the sites until the end of 2008, well after the recession had already set in.
“The bottom line is, Silverstein didn’t miss the market; the market missed Silverstein,” Mr. Ward said.
The governor’s office did not return phone calls seeking comment.