Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 69

Thread: Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

  1. #31

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    It seems to me that both the Libeskind and SOM designs are essentially the same. Both have the same upper limit of office space. Why is one a "huge skyscraper" and the other not?

    Personally, I'd like to see the design before I decide. The "branches of a tree" in the SOM design may be even more ethereal than Libeskind tower and it certainly doesn't sound like it will be occupied like Libeskind's. If it does appear beefier than it might be for the best but it should reach the 1776ft height, not 1300ft. I have said from the very beginning that the office tower part of Libeskind's spire should be much taller, almost the height of the roof of the spire portion, even if it is unoccupied. This design seems to be approaching that concept. Hopefully the ideal compromise of a beefier tower can be achieved by these folks.

  2. #32

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    You're right Garcia. In fact I think it's where Libeskind got his inspiration from in the first place. *His was not the only tower to include open space at the top. *My favorite, Foster's tower(s) included about 200 ft of open space at the top. *

    I think by the time these designs came around, it was already a given that Silverstein's preference (or anyone building there) was for the open space at the top, at least partially based on David Child's early discussions and to ease fears about height.

    The 1300 ft figure was before Libeskind's plan though, and any modifications will be based on Libeskind's plan. *That means the tower will reach the 1,776 ft mark -including the observation deck, restaurants, and offices for the broadcasters who have also signed on since that 1300 ft mark was discussed.

  3. #33
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    I know it goes against the tide on this board, but I am more supportive of a developer lead solution than the current mess.

    I think Liebskind needs to go - FAR FAR AWAY from this project.

  4. #34

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Fine, but why? Because you're pro-business?

  5. #35
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    1) *I think Liebskind's vision is seriously flawed. *
    2) We are far enough out of the lofty idealized "competition" and "selection" process to see that there are many on-going variables that impact design and planning. *People less familiar are "fighting" for the "integrity" of a plan that simply MUST evolve and change.
    3) There are too many "commitees" who have their hand in this. *Nothing gets done by committee ANYWHERE, let alone numerous committees. *They simply add a bureaucratic, deadweight component to process.
    4) This is NYC. *Silverstein holds the lease. Silverstein holds the money. *No one is better poised to build it from a financial perspective, lawsuits notwithstanding. *The city and government agencies need to tread lightly as far as honoring his lease, because there will be LONG ranging implications if they set a precedent of ejecting a legal owner through, what would essentially be a claim of emminent domain.

    or, I'm just talking out my ass. *

  6. #36

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    This is NYC. *Silverstein holds the lease. Silverstein holds the money.

    Don't you see a contradiction in your theory ?
    Because this is NYC, Silverstein is not the only one who can afford to rebuild the WTC.

  7. #37

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    I agree that the developer holds most of the cards in this game, but the LMDC was created to add NY influence to an autonomous PA piece of land. *That is the special flavor of this situation; the land is semi/quasi-public already. *Silverstein had an insured lease, so he must be 'made whole' for that.

    Either the state pays to buy Silverstein out, or it makes a ton on his investment, tax base, infrastructure, etc. *Interest groups *are trying to bully him with the LMDC and Libeskind's 'public mandate' but really, do they have a choice other than to concede to his and the PA's final word?

  8. #38

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Brooklyn rider, you're right about the developer, but wrong about Silverstein. He lacks the ego that created Woolworth,
    Chrysler, ESB. I'm sure there are others who would like to put their stamp on history - where are they?

  9. #39

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    If it were broken up and dealt with in parcels, maybe, but the LMDC is pushing this grand unified scheme, so it won't go the way of the Civic Alliance "proposals" from a few weeks ago.

    Do you think Larry would sell the lease now, and just be finished with the whole mess, sell the development rights? *I would love to see Libeskind's face if that happened.

  10. #40

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    I was speaking in the context of the buildings as skyline defining - since that is what most of us have a problem with. If Silverstein wanted to be bold and build a supertall building(s), I'm sure the PA would have no problem with it, as long as the site was developed as agreed.

    Like or not Libeskind's design, he at least understands that this is more than replacing lost infrastructure. I don't understand why so much of the criticism is directed at him.
    He is an architect contracted by clients - the primary being the PA. They control the site. Silverstein is just a renter - he has no ownership.

  11. #41

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    I guess I'm foggy on who has to rebuild, meaning must spend.
    Silverstein is recieving insurance money to replace what he had rented, right? *
    The PA is replacing infrastructure with Federal money disbursed throught the LMDC, right? *
    The LMDC is kind of a planning and oversight body that commissioned a master plan by Libeskind, are they obligated or empowered sufficiently to ensure absolute adherence? *Did the PA sign on and agree to uphold this?
    I have gotten the impression the PA could do OK without the LMDC in terms of planning, and rebuilding, but poorly with respect to allocating a memorial site, and dealing with the community. *Libeskind is the glue holding it all together, or should be. *
    Maybe having fallen victim to the efforts that seek to undermine his vision and authority, I ask; do those with the money have to follow his lead?

    The memorial selection has the potential to put all of this in a totally new light. *Of the players, when push comes to shove who has the best footing?

  12. #42
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,752

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    I don't think that most of the comments against Libeskind's plan are targeted in a personal way. *If they are, I think its just misguided. *Its the plan, not him.

    Silverstein has an ego. *Just not the one that builds tall buildings. *Otherwise I think he would have left this process long ago.

  13. #43

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 4:39 pm on July 10, 2003
    I was speaking in the context of the buildings as skyline defining - since that is what most of us have a problem with. If Silverstein wanted to be bold and build a supertall building(s), I'm sure the PA would have no problem with it, as long as the site was developed as agreed.

    Like or not Libeskind's design, he at least understands that this is more than replacing lost infrastructure. I don't understand why so much of the criticism is directed at him.
    He is an architect contracted by clients - the primary being the PA. They control the site. Silverstein is just a renter - he has no ownership.
    I too have never understood how Libeskind can be blamed when it is the other players holding him back and indeed picked his design to begin with.

    In the end run it is Pataki, via his control of the PA, that has the final say on all things on the site. Silverstein is truely the uneccessary complication to the matter. There would be much, much less conflict without him holding back the skyline.

  14. #44

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Jasonik:
    The LMDC draft scope of the GEIS is here
    http://www.renewnyc.org/content/pdfs/WTCDraftScope.pdf

    It will outline what's going to happen over the next several years. The document states that the Federal Transit Admin (FTA) will be the lead agency responsible for the PATH terminal. The FTA and the MTA will be lead agencies for the Fulton Transit Center. There will be a separate EIS for each of these.

    The LMDC is lead agency for everything else.

  15. #45

    Default Keeping the Vision at Ground Zero

    Zippy, thank-you.

    So essentially Silverstein has a lease on this stack of paper...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Rescuing the Buildings Beyond Ground Zero
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 8th, 2008, 12:33 AM
  2. Race to build at ground zero
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 16th, 2007, 02:12 PM
  3. Ground Zero Designs: Reality vs. Renaissance
    By JMGarcia in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2002, 11:31 AM
  4. New Ritz must go on next to ground zero
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 19th, 2002, 09:24 AM
  5. Seven Achitects Offer their Visions for Ground Zero
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 13th, 2002, 07:20 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software