130 Liberty St - Post 9/11 Demo - Deutsche Bank Building - by Shreve, Lamb and Harmon

[NoyokA]

Most buildings from the same era had problems with asbestos, few if any were demolished. Economically and emotionally it is cheaper and all around to repair than to rebuild.

[Freedom Tower]

All I can say is I hope that the DB decision gets delayed so long that Silverstein will have to build on-site, like Stern says, and keep the heights high and the widths wide. I don't want the WTC site to be a dissapointment. Then after it's too late for Silverstein to buy DB property hopefully they will raze it and build something better. I wouldn't trust the strength of that building no matter what they did to it. It's better to just start with a clean slate.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I'm not so sure Stern. The federal building cleanup cost is already $30 million. Fiterman Hall is still battling with the insurer.

Freedom Tower: It's the PA that's considering buying the site, not Silverstein.

[BrooklynRider]

Right, after all the talk about the PA getting out of the real estate business.

[NyC MaNiAc]

So if the DB building is going down...could anything Tall and Impressive be going up?

[Freedom Tower]

Thanks Zippy, you know too much . NYC Maniac - from what I've heard if the DB building is torn down it's just going to shorten all of Libeskinds buildings because that is where he'll place his fifth tower. So if it gets torn down it may actually in affect, lessen the height of other buildings. So instead of getting something great, it'll take away some of the great buildings we could've gotten. Or at least thats what I've been hearing. I am not 100% sure.

[JMGarcia]

The Libeskind plan always included a 5th tower on the site of 130 Liberty St. to bring the office space up to 10 million sq. ft. In the plan it is about 100 feet taller than the current building.

[NyC MaNiAc]

Blah. Such nonsense. Yet another oppurtunity to buiild a great building will instead be taken up by another building at the Trade Center site?

Geez, I think people wanted 2 Tall, Majestic, and imposing towers...not FIVE small ones.

[Freedom Tower]

Thanks for the info Garcia. It's interesting. What would be done if DB did not want to sell? Was that Plan 2?

[Kris]

Deutsche Bank Sues Insurers To Proceed With Demolition

[Chicagoan]

Reuters
Deutsche Bank Sues Insurers on 9/11 Claim
Monday August 11, 3:24 pm ET
By Jonathan Stempel


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Deutsche Bank AG (XETRABKGn.DE - News) on Monday sued Europe's two largest insurers to try to force them to pay for the demolition and replacement of its damaged office building at the south end of the World Trade Center site.

In its complaint filed with the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Deutsche Bank said the 41-story building at 130 Liberty Street, which is now unoccupied and shrouded in black netting, is a "total loss."

The insurers, Germany's Allianz AG (XETRA:ALVG.DE - News) and France's AXA (Paris:AXAF.PA - News), have said the building might instead be repaired, for less money.

The lawsuit may further complicate plans to redevelop the area near Ground Zero, and is one of many insurance lawsuits arising from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Deutsche Bank said the building suffered a 15-story gash when the Twin Towers collapsed, and is now infected with mold. It said tornado-force winds from the falling towers distributed asbestos and other contaminants throughout the building.

The bank said it decided the building should be razed after spending more than $33 million over 10 months for a team of experts to study structural and contamination issues.

"The only reasonably feasible solution is to stabilize, surgically tear down, demolish and replace the building," the lawsuit said. A ruling in favor of Allianz and AXA might cost the bank "several hundreds of millions of dollars," it said.

Sabia Schwarzer, an Allianz spokeswoman in Washington, D.C., said "there may be very good reasons for the building to come down." Still, she said Allianz's "obligation is to reimburse Deutsche Bank with insured losses associated with the damage. But that's all."

AXA did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

COVERAGE

Deutsche Bank said its insurance policies for the building provide $1.715 billion of coverage, less than the $1.9 billion it expects ultimately to have lost from the attacks.

It said Allianz and AXA must pay their respective 30 percent and 20 percent shares of the cost of razing and replacing the building, equivalent to a payout of $858 million.

Allianz and AXA have estimated the entire building can be cleaned and repaired for $500 million.

Deutsche Bank said it has already settled with Chubb Corp. (NYSE:CB - News) and Zurich Financial Services AG (ZURZn.VX), which provided the building's remaining insurance coverage, after agreeing to estimate the total loss at $1.05 billion.

The bank had given Allianz and AXA until Sunday to settle out of court, people familiar with the matter said.

In another high-profile lawsuit stemming from the attacks, World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein is battling insurers over whether the Twin Towers' destruction was two events, entitling him to two claims worth more than $7 billion, or one, entitling him to half that amount. (Additional reporting by Jan Dahinten in Frankfurt, Philip Klein in New York and Mary Kelleher in Paris.)

[JMGarcia]

Quote: from Freedom Tower on 2:00 pm on Aug. 11, 2003
Thanks for the info Garcia. It's interesting. What would be done if DB did not want to sell? Was that Plan 2?

The other option to Libeskind's plan had the 4 office towers on site each 5 stories taller to make up for the space at 130 Liberty St. which was set to be rebuilt as residential and hotel.

[Kris]

August 12, 2003

Bank Sues to Force Insurers to Declare Tower 9/11 Loss

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

Deutsche Bank filed a lawsuit yesterday seeking to force two insurance companies to declare its office building across from the World Trade Center site a complete loss, in a dispute that threatens to complicate the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan.

The bank-owned skyscraper, at 130 Liberty Street, at the south end of ground zero, stands on a parcel of land that developers, designers and public officials have for weeks assumed would be available for use in the redevelopment project. But the bank's decision to file suit signals renewed uncertainty over the fate of the building.

The bank says in court papers that the building is too badly contaminated with toxic materials like asbestos and mercury to ever be reoccupied, and that insurers Allianz and AXA must pay their contracted share of a $1.715 billion loss. The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, is heavy with legal and scientific arguments, but also seeks to capitalize on the intensity of feeling associated with helping Lower Manhattan overcome the damage of the 2001 terrorist attack.

"Until this impasse is resolved," the suit says, "the building remains a dark reminder of unspeakable tragedy and threatens to impede efforts to redevelop ground zero."

The insurers have not moved from their position that the building can be repaired, cleaned and reoccupied and that Deutsche Bank has lost no more than $500 million. In addition, Allianz spokeswoman Sabia Schwarzer said the dispute between her company and the bank had nothing to do with whether the building stayed up or came down. An AXA spokesman, Christophe Dufraux, did not return two calls to his Paris office.

"They could do whatever they want with the building," said Ms. Schwarzer, who is based in Silver Spring, Md. "It's not for Allianz to decide. It is their building. We have no stake in that. We have the responsibility to reimburse them on insured losses."

The conflict threatens to drag on, stoked by a combination of large financial stakes and political pressures. AXA and Allianz are so far apart from Deutsche Bank in terms of estimated loss — more than half a billion dollars — that the expense of a court fight might be worth the investment. At the same time, the two insurers could find themselves under pressure from politicians eager to see the dispute resolved, a reality that might force a settlement but also could improve their bargaining position.

"There is enough money here at stake that, yes, both sides would go through the expense of the litigation," said Aurora Cassirer, an expert in insurance litigation and a managing partner at the New York City office of Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin.

The dispute arose at a time when public officials, designers and developers were moving toward a consensus on the redevelopment project. For months there were arguments over many details of the plan, some of which were resolved by an agreement to use the land occupied by the bank building.

Kevin Rampe, president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said the ambitious redevelopment project most likely would not be interrupted by the dispute between Deutsche Bank and its insurers because he expected that the building would be torn down.

"From L.M.D.C.'s perspective, we are committed to the inclusion of the property in the planning effort, and we fully expect it will be included at the end of the day," he said. "I think there is a strong public interest in having the plan with the Deutsche Bank property."

There are various situations that could, theoretically, pave the way for the building's demolition. Public officials could, for example, move to condemn the property and pay a court-determined market value for it. That, however, would put officials in the position of having to take Deutsche Bank's side in its dispute with the insurers.

Construction of the Deutsche Bank building was completed in 1974 by Bankers Trust. The name of the building changed when Deutsche Bank took over Bankers Trust. Deutsche Bank holds four insurance policies on the building totaling up to $1.715 billion. Two of the insurers agreed recently to settle with Deutsche Bank for $1.05 billion: the Chubb Corporation, which would be responsible for covering 30 percent of that amount, and Zurich Financial, which would cover 20 percent.

Allianz and AXA have eight days to file a response in court.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Hof]

Here in Florida there have been many costly attempts to remove mold from large buildings,and most of them have met with a dismally expensive failure.
In one case in central Florida,a large County Administration building caught mold.It forced the evacuation of a two-year old,$18 million dollar structure for a couple of years while the mold was cleaned out.
The decontamination cost exceeded the cost of the building.Shortly after it was re-occupied,the building re-infested,and the whole process was done again.The building is again re-occupied,but the employees working there do not trust the building,fearing another mold incident.The County is erecting a new courthouse and will eventually demolish the existing structure.
130 Liberty should be demolished.Once mold takes a building,you can never be certain that it will be free of it,no matter how thorough the cleaning process.

[Kris]

August 26, 2003

2 Insurers Say Bank's Suit Tries to Capitalize on 9/11

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

This time it was the insurance companies' turn, and they did not hold back, declaring that Deutsche Bank was cynically seeking to exploit the Sept. 11 attack to tar their image and force insurers to pay more than $1 billion for the damage to the bank's former United States headquarters near ground zero.

The increasingly bitter tenor of the dispute between Deutsche Bank and the insurers Allianz and AXA does not bode well for a speedy resolution to the conflict over exactly how badly damaged the bank building was when the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

Developers, public officials and community leaders have assumed for weeks that the redevelopment project for Lower Manhattan would incorporate the Liberty Street parcel on which the bank stands.

The bank filed suit this month, insisting that the building was too contaminated to be reoccupied and asking the court to force Allianz and AXA to declare the building a total loss and pay their contracted share of $1.7 billion in insured value. There are four insurance contracts on the building, but the two other insurers have agreed to pay a share of a negotiated $1 billion settlement.

The bank has indicated that it wants the building demolished and the parcel used in the redevelopment of ground zero, but it says the building cannot be torn down until the dispute is resolved.

In its filing in State Supreme Court in Manhattan yesterday, Allianz wrote that it and AXA still believed the building could be cleaned, repaired and reoccupied, and that Deutsche Bank was seeking to win an "inflated settlement."

Allianz said the dispute with Deutsche Bank should in no way impede the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan, because even without a resolution the property can be sold and the building demolished. The sale, it said, could be done through a negotiated deal or the use of eminent domain, in which a government entity would buy the parcel at its current market value.

/>The court filing said that Deutsche Bank "repeatedly mischaracterizes the nature of its dispute with A.I.C. and AXA in a cynical attempt to leverage the lingering image of Sept. 11 into more dollars from its insurers."

The papers asked the court to declare the bank's request for an expedited trial unnecessary because the insurers have invoked a clause in their contracts that permits disputes over value of damage to be settled through an appraisal conducted by a three-member panel. The insurers and the bank would each select one panel member; those members would then together select a third. The bank said it would move forward with the panel, even as it pursues the lawsuit.

The insurers charge that the bank is "trying to get an inflated settlement from its insurance companies not based on the facts of the dispute but based on other emotional or political pressures," said John B. Massopust, a lawyer with the firm of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette in Minneapolis, representing Allianz.

The bank declined to respond yesterday other than to refer to its own court filing, in which it said, "The damage to the building resulting from the events of Sept. 11 is of such magnitude and extent that the only reasonably feasible solution is to stabilize, surgically tear down, demolish and replace the building."

The 40-story former Bankers Trust building is at 130 Liberty Street, about 300 feet away from where the south trade center tower stood. When the tower collapsed, debris blasted the glass façade of the building and tore a 15-story gash in its face. Deutsche Bank has said it spent millions of dollars on tests and concluded that the building was badly contaminated by toxic dust that permeated every nook and cranny in the building and that it could not possibly be cleaned.

Its court papers also evoked emotions stirred by the Sept. 11 attack, saying, "The building remains a dark reminder of unspeakable tragedy and threatens to impede efforts to redevelop ground zero."

In the legal filing, and in comments during a telephone interview, Allianz's lawyer disputed every aspect of the bank's argument, insisting, for example, that no credible evidence had been presented to prove that the building was contaminated as badly as the bank claimed in its court papers, and that there was no reason the building could not be cleaned and reoccupied, as was done with other buildings near ground zero.

Although the bank "crows loudly about the testing program that supposedly justifies its contention that 130 Liberty Street is a constructive total loss, the reality is that its conclusions are largely unsubstantiated by underlying test data, at least test data which has been furnished to A.I.C. and AXA," the lawsuit said.

Mr. Massopust, the lawyer, said that the bank was trying to rake in more than $1 billion, even though it paid just $84 million for the building and the property in 1996.

But with that argument he also exposed the bookend reality that is emerging with this dispute, in which each side presents credible-sounding arguments, only to be countered by the other. The bank, for example, pointed out in its court papers that the money it sought was to cover the cost of demolishing the building, the current cost for reconstruction, and other business losses.

The insurers said the building could be torn down even while the dispute was unresolved, but the bank received a letter from the insurers in July saying, "Allianz and AXA expect that the bank will not take any action which will impair Allianz's and AXA's ability to conduct appropriate tests within 130 Liberty Street and assume that no such action has been taken to date."

The bank said that meant that the insurers had ordered it not to tear the building down. The insurers said the bank was taking one paragraph out of context.

Allianz, through its lawyer, also accused the bank of being the one to hold up the work in Lower Manhattan by filing suit and not relying on the appraisal process, which it said would be faster. But the bank has said that it wants an expedited trial, and that an appraisal between parties that do not agree could itself become a lengthy process.

For their part, state officials have said that whatever comes of the dispute, the parcel at 130 Liberty would be incorporated into the plans.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company