View Poll Results: Construction is underway, how do you feel about the final design for the WTC site?

Voters
192. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am more than satisfied; I believe that the final design surpasses that of the original World Trade Center. 10/10

    50 26.04%
  • While nothing may ever live up to the Twin Towers, I am wholly satisfied with the new World Trade Center; it is a new symbol for a new era. 7/10

    55 28.65%
  • I have come to terms with the new World Trade Center; although it has a number of flaws, I find the design to be acceptable. 5/10

    48 25.00%
  • I am wholly disappointed with the New World Trade Center; we will live to regret the final design. 0/10

    22 11.46%
  • I am biased, but honest, and hate anything that is not a reincarnation of the original Twin Towers.

    17 8.85%
Page 157 of 407 FirstFirst ... 57107147153154155156157158159160161167207257 ... LastLast
Results 2,341 to 2,355 of 6091

Thread: World Trade Center Developments

  1. #2341

    Default

    lol oh the hardships of being a lawn in NYC.

    It's pretty much a dead area because the buildings "open" towards the harbor. I rarely see people entering the Winter Garden from the other side and you can't cross the street on that side.

    Actually to applaud "the lawn" it saved quite a few lives on 9/11 when people escaping could use the extra space to avoid the immediate area near the towers.

  2. #2342

    Default

    The lawn got plenty of sun because the West St corridor is so wide. The original trees got really big, until they were cut down around 2000 to repair the seawall.

    The area probably looks the way it does because it was designed with the elevated highway still in place, and no one thought about West St as a pedestrian space. By the time construction began, the highway was demolished, but no one stopped to think that maybe a redesign was needed.

  3. #2343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
    Where would they put it?
    I would guess south of Liberty St. on the DB site where the big elevated plaza was.

  4. #2344

    Default

    Silverstein Speaks

    New York Sun Staff Editorial
    February 10, 2006
    URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/27381

    Larry Silverstein is not a man who likes to negotiate in public. With his project at ground zero under attack by the mayor, he stopped by the offices of The New York Sun on Wednesday and spent an hour in our editorial room. We don't mind saying he made the Great Sphinx sound like Joan Rivers. When our editor, a man of nigh infinite patience, finally asked him to dig down deep for the best angle he could possibly give us on the record, you could hear a pin drop and then, nothing. That evening, while the mayor was supping with the governor, who is supposedly Mr. Silverstein's ally, the mayor's development tsar, Daniel Doctoroff, got on the blower with the Sun and lambasted Mr. Silverstein's plan for ground zero, saying, as we reported in our editorial yesterday, that Mr. Silverstein was going to run out of money and ought to hand over the choicest sites at ground zero to the Port Authority for a discount on the rent.

    Well, Mr. Silverstein has just found his voice. He released a statement yesterday rebutting the claims by City Hall that are contained in a written report by the city's Economic Development Corporation and were summarized to us over the phone by Mr. Doctoroff on Wednesday evening. Mr. Silverstein's statement makes for compelling reading for those following the drama over the city's plans for the allotment of the remaining $1.7 billion in tax-favored Liberty Bonds, even if the city still disputes his calculations. He dismisses the city's most significant claim - that he won't have enough money to finish all the office towers he proposes to build at ground zero - as a problem caused by the city's refusal, at least so far, to release to him the $1.7 billion in Liberty Bond financing he freely admits he needs to finish the project.

    Mr. Silverstein insists, however, that he'll have the financing if the city honors the intent of Congress in respect of the Liberty Bonds. He holds the proceeds from an insurance settlement worth more than $4.5 billion. He holds the state's half of the remaining Liberty Bonds. Mr. Silverstein also, incidentally, notes that the city's analysis disregards the state's half of the remaining Liberty Bonds, which Governor Pataki has already committed to Mr. Silverstein. It seems disingenuous for the city to pillory Mr. Silverstein for not having money the city itself is trying to avoid giving to him.

    The city claims that the commercial real estate market in lower Manhattan will not support the rents Mr. Silverstein would have to charge to make the development successful. An analysis prepared for Mr. Silverstein by Morgan Stanley has found that rents would have to reach only $50 a square foot in order to finance rebuilding on schedule, not the $66 the city estimates would be required. Yet as this fight has been brewing at ground zero, Mr. Silverstein is already nearly finished building 7 World Trade Center across the street and has been signing at least some tenants at rents above $50, suggesting that the market will bear that price.

    The mayor's most strident criticism of Mr. Silverstein has been that his rebuilding project will proceed too slowly. In his statement Mr. Silverstein contends that the delayed timetable for the two towers - three and four - along the eastern edge of ground zero result from the Port Authority's own foot-dragging in respect of excavating the site deeply enough to lay the foundations for skyscrapers and constructing the "bathtub" to protect those foundations from the force of the Hudson.

    Mr. Silverstein is at his most devastating, however, when he responds to Mayor Bloomberg's preferred method for solving the problems the city purports to have discovered. The mayor has expressed a preference for muscling Mr. Silverstein off the site, especially in respect of the third and fourth towers, which would, in the mayor's plan, be built either by the government or another developer, or both. Mr. Silverstein decries this as "Soviet-style confiscation." We tend to be sympathetic to Mr. Silverstein on this point. He took the risk and he deserves the reward. But when the reward comprises, even if only in part, several billion dollars in debt subsidized by the taxpayers, well, don't be surprised if Karl Marx - not to mention Mayor Bloomberg - shows up at your groundbreaking.

    It is impossible to know what rents business will or won't pay ten years from now, although, as a developer who has been in the commercial property business for half a century, Mr. Silverstein certainly is entitled to risk his fortune and standing. Mr. Silverstein blames the Port Authority for major construction delays, and we can see no angle on this from which the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey appears to be playing a benign role, and, from the point of view of New Yorkers, it can only have become worse with the accession in Trenton of Governor Corzine.

    In the days before September 11, Mr. Silverstein was willing to take the risk of signing a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, even though no one could have fathomed then what a risk that was. Since September 11, Mr. Silverstein has been making regular rent payments of $10 million a month to the Port Authority, living up to his end of the lease. The city and Port Authority now appear bent on reneging on their end of the deal, which would require them to let Mr. Silverstein build commercial space on the site. We have come to respect the standing of the mayor as a custodian of the taxpayers' interest. But if all this is resolved in a way in which Mr. Silverstein's property rights are taken for granted, it will inflict an enormous amount of damage on the city.
    ***

  5. #2345

    Default

    Just how tall will these WTC towers be?

    (downtown express0

    Not ready to close the debate on opening Cortlandt St.




    By Ronda Kaysen


    One man’s shopping heaven is another man’s suburban hell.

    A block of Cortlandt St. between Church and Greenwich Sts. has found itself at the center of a dispute between the Department of City Planning and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey about whether to reopen the block, which has been closed since the Twin Towers were built, or transform the space into an enclosed mall.

    When the two agencies made a repeat appearance at a Community Board 1 meeting last week to plead their cases, the community seemed as divided as the two agencies on the future of the street.

    “Typically the community board usually has a unified position on something about the Trade Center, but with this it isn’t clear-cut where the members are at,” C.B. 1 World Trade Center Redevelopment Committee chairperson Catherine McVay Hughes told Downtown Express. “It’s hard to make a decision.”

    City Planning would like to see the street reopened, arguing that closing Cortlandt will create a “superblock” along Church St. and cut the memorial and the rest of the Trade Center off from passersby and east-west access. With a PowerPoint presentation of pedestrians ambling along a paved promenade and shop signs flapping in the wind, the city pleaded its case. “We need our streets, we need connectivity, we need an open Cortlandt St. for light and air and to create normal blocks,” said City Planning Chairperson Amanda Burden at the Feb. 6 World Trade Center Committee meeting. “It is important to open a street that has been closed for decades.”

    The Port Authority had its own PowerPoint presentation, one with images of a glorious glass atrium welcoming visitors to a three-level mall straddling Towers 3 and 4. An open street, the authority insists, would be little more than an isolated wind tunnel, darkened by two 1,000-ft. towers. Third floor retail – about 100,000 sq. ft. — would be un-desireable to tenants if the street was not enclosed because it could be harder to induce shoppers to go to higher floors if they are not already walking in a large indoor space.

    “We have the opportunity to create a wonderful environment here,” James Connors, director of the W.T.C. redevelopment for the Port Authority, told board members. “It really is an urban mall, in the tradition of the Time Warner Center.”

    It is the very issue of a mall that has residents deeply divided. “In the ‘80s it was a dismal, miserable mall,” said board member and Battery Park City resident Jeff Galloway of the original Trade Center mall, adding that the mall was only successful when Borders Books moved in—with street level access. “I’m not sure that there is any mall that has ever been successful in Manhattan. The mall succeeds in sapping the life out of Lower Manhattan.”

    Fred Kent, president of Project for Public Spaces, an advocacy group, was even more blunt. “Malls are dead,” he told board members.

    Advocates for building the mall had a very different memory of the original Trade Center, one that included weekends spent ambling through the mall, a welcome haven from the frigid, windswept Trade Center plaza above.

    “The former Trade Center shopping environment was one of the most successful in the country,” said Connors.

    There will be significant enclosed retail at the new Trade Center site with or without closing off Cortlandt. The new Calatrava PATH station under construction will have three levels of below-grade retail, totalling 200,000 sq. ft. But the bulk of the retail will be along Church and Greenwich Sts.

    Residents who supported bringing a mall to the block worried about a narrow street made uninhabitable by a near constant wind tunnel. “I don’t think a 47-foot wide street between two 1,000-foot tall buildings will be a place where people will congregate. It wil be a place where people will rush through,” said C.B. 1 member and Tribeca resident Peter Braus.

    Some even wondered if City Planning’s argument that the block would improve the street grid was valid. “A block that extends for one block doesn’t really create connectivity,” said board member Marc Donnenfeld.

    As with most points, this one also had a contrarian. “If Cortlandt St. were closed between Brodaway and Church we’d be affected by it,” said Maiden Lane resident Claire Weisz. Maiden Lane becomes Cortlandt St. when it crosses Broadway. “Streets are public space. Everytime you close a street, you lose some public space. Just because a street may not be perfect doesn’t mean you have to lose it.”

    The two sides must eventually reach a consensus, depending on whom you ask. As part of the master plan agreement for the Trade Center site, the two sides must reach “a point of mutual agreement” on the block, according to Connors. Talk to City Planning and you get a different assessment of the master plan. “It is now written into the agreement that Cortlandt has to be open,” said Burden. To change it would require “a rewriting of the agreement.”

    Cortlandt St. is not the only variable in the equation, however. Towers 3 and 4 are supposed to be built by developer Larry Silverstein, but the Port Authority has made it clear that they would like to build the two towers, not just the retail component. Silverstein told Downtown Express last month that he had no preference for an enclosed mall or an open street. He just wanted to see the three-story podiums where the retail space will be built so he could build his towers.

    “There are so many unknowns for Cortlandt St.,” said W.T.C. Redevelopment Committee chairperson Hughes. “We don’t even know who is developing the site yet. There is no need to make a decision on this.”


  6. #2346
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    Look at the horrible fortress base on Freedom Tower in the background. I know it is only a rendering, but it makes me shudder. If they are going for that "suburban mall feel" with this design, they hit the nail on the head. All those shoppers missing the old Manhattan Mall should be wetting their cotton-lined panties over this proposal.

  7. #2347

    Default

    1000

    1000

    1000

    Say that as many times as you can PA.

  8. #2348

    Angry The Mayor Continues To Battle Lower Manhattan

    February 19, 2006
    At Ground Zero, No End to a Dispute That's Years Old and 1,776 Feet High
    By CHARLES V. BAGLI



    At a downtown breakfast meeting nearly three years ago, Gov. George E. Pataki made the tallest building planned for the World Trade Center site also its most richly symbolic one when he called it the "Freedom Tower."

    Eager to counter claims that the rebuilding effort had lost momentum, Mr. Pataki declared that the 1,776-foot tall tower would be the first building finished, in 2008, and the governor's office would be the first tenant to move in.

    "For the first time since the attacks, we have not only the vision for redevelopment but also a comprehensive timeline," Mr. Pataki said at the time. "It's an ambitious plan for swift action that leaves no room for error or delay."

    Officials no longer put any stock in a 2008 completion date. Indeed, under the current schedule, Larry A. Silverstein, the developer who controls the lease at the trade center, would not finish building and leasing the tower until the end of 2011.

    But the Freedom Tower and the decisions made in 2003 loom large today over the very public slugfest involving Mr. Silverstein, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land, over what is going to be built, who is going to build it and when.

    The governor, who is considering a presidential run, has insisted on an April groundbreaking for the Freedom Tower, which is sure to attract national attention.

    But many urban planners, downtown real estate executives and civic leaders contend that the $2.3 billion, 2.6 million square foot Freedom Tower is planned for the wrong place, too big and would be unlikely to attract tenants other than government agencies, though few are willing to say so publicly for fear of offending the governor.

    There are even suggestions that Mr. Silverstein may offer to return the Freedom Tower site to the Port Authority as part of a restructuring of his lease at ground zero, according to people involved in negotiations on the site's future. Mr. Pataki, for his part, has said Mr. Silverstein must have resolved his disagreements with the Port Authority by March 14 or face losing hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies.

    "It's really important that we accelerate development on the entire site," said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City. "Many people say the Freedom Tower is not a viable economic proposition even with Liberty Bonds and insurance money. It stands in the way of the development of the balance of the site, which would otherwise be quite feasible."

    John Cahill, the governor's chief of staff who oversees downtown rebuilding, counters that the Freedom Tower is infused with meaning that goes far beyond an ordinary real estate project. Besides, he said, alternative building sites at ground zero would not be ready for construction to begin for 18 months to two years.

    "The Freedom Tower will serve as a testament to our resiliency as a people, a city and a country in the wake of the horrific attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," Mr. Cahill said. "The 1,776-foot tower will reclaim our city's skyline and is emblematic of the enduring spirit of New Yorkers and our nation."

    Mr. Bloomberg and Anthony R. Coscia, chairman of the authority, have publicly supported the governor's push for the Freedom Tower. But they have also called for a restructuring of Mr. Silverstein's lease and a viable financial plan that would allow construction to move more quickly.

    "Silverstein would run out of money in about four years and we would be left with a half-built project and a construction site for the foreseeable future," Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference on Wednesday. "The way you solve that problem is you have multiple developers doing multiple kind of buildings simultaneously."

    Mr. Coscia has proposed that Mr. Silverstein yield two building sites on Church Street and a major portion of the trade center property in return for a substantial reduction in his annual rent of $140 million. They say that it would cost more than $7 billion to build a total of five towers at ground zero, but Mr. Silverstein would have only $2.9 billion of insurance money available.

    "It's clear that if you don't go ahead now with the Freedom Tower, you'll have no construction on the site for a year and half," said Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff. "That's not acceptable. The solution we proposed will enable us to get all four buildings plus the retail up, and hopefully, occupied by late 2011."

    Under the proposal, Mr. Silverstein would proceed with the Freedom Tower and a second building, while the Port Authority would become the anchor tenant for a third tower on Church Street, build a retail mall, and sell the fourth site to a developer for a hotel, office space, and according to the mayor, about 700 apartments.

    In contrast, the architect Daniel Libeskind's original plan for the trade center was to build the memorial to the victims of Sept. 11 first, the Church Street towers second and what became known as the Freedom Tower in the third phase. But the governor put the tower in first place. Knowing that he had few friends at City Hall or at the authority, Mr. Silverstein followed Mr. Pataki's lead and abandoned his effort to move the Freedom Tower from the northwest corner to what the developer thought was a more logical spot on Church Street, next to the new transit center.

    "He had one ally, the governor, and the governor wanted him to build the Freedom Tower first," Kevin M. Rampe, a former senior redevelopment official appointed by the governor, said of Mr. Silverstein.

    In any event, Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly called on Mr. Silverstein to put aside his desire "to maximize the profits of his investment" and do the right thing for the city.

    A City Hall analysis of ground zero says that Mr. Silverstein and his investors took back most, if not all, of the $137 million he and his investors put into his 2001 leasing deal with the authority. Mr. Silverstein has also proposed that he get a 5 percent development fee, which could add more than $100 million to the cost of the Freedom Tower.

    Mr. Silverstein has responded angrily to the mayor, saying that the attacks on him "hurt all of downtown," by increasing the uncertainty over ground zero and scaring away potential tenants. As the feud escalated, Mr. Silverstein borrowed a phrase from the cold war, saying that the proposal that he give back the two sites best suited for corporate tenants amounted to "Soviet-style confiscation."

    The developer has argued that the Port Authority should move to the Freedom Tower, along with other state and city agencies.

    "We believe the two towers on Church Street are perfect for large, private-sector employers such as the financial institutions that are key to the city's economic future," said Janno N. Lieber, senior vice president of Silverstein Properties.

    Mr. Silverstein says that he has the insurance money and is in the best position to build the first four towers with a combination of cash and Liberty Bonds.

    But there is a clear sense at the Port Authority and elsewhere that Mr. Silverstein cannot do everything, no matter what he claims.

    "There's a feeling by many commissioners at the port that he will run out of money and be unable to build it all," said Charles A. Gargano, the state's top economic development official and vice chairman of the authority. "The port is willing to work with the Silverstein group to complete the development of the site in an expeditious way."

    Although the talks among Mr. Silverstein, Mr. Cahill and the authority are being conducted in secret, officials who have been briefed on the negotiations say that there has been informal discussion in the last week about Mr. Silverstein ceding the Freedom Tower to the authority. But they also say that the authority would be unlikely to take on that project unless Mr. Silverstein also agreed that the Port Authority would get most of the insurance money, as well as control of the two Church Street sites.

    Officials say that the negotiations are likely to go right up until the March 14 deadline imposed by Mr. Pataki. Mayor Bloomberg, who is not directly involved in the talks, has sought to use his influence to strengthen the authority's negotiating position.

    But his repeated suggestions that residential development could take place at ground zero has driven some downtown business and real estate executives to support Mr. Silverstein. They argue that there are no other sites for office towers left downtown and fear that the mayor is more concerned with promoting commercial development on the recently rezoned Far West Side.

    At the same time, residents and local politicians demonstrated Friday against the mayor's recent decision to eliminate funding for two schools that would serve the growing residential population in Lower Manhattan.

    Still, there is a widespread feeling that it is time for change in the plans for downtown.

    "The governor's insistence on this tower as a political symbol three years ago has tied the site up in knots," said David Dyssegaard Kallick, a senior fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute. "But renegotiating the lease with Silverstein is the right thing to do. We need to get the phasing and the order of the buildings right so that we can create the kind of vibrant commercial and residential district that Lower Manhattan is and needs to be."

  9. #2349
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    The more Pataki crows about this the funnier it gets. I'm sure next month he'll mumble through another speech and tell us it will be completed by Labor Day. There's little doubt that everyone seems to be waiting him out. The minute he leaves office, I'm guessing things will move quickly in some direction.

  10. #2350
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider
    Look at the horrible fortress base on Freedom Tower in the background. I know it is only a rendering, but it makes me shudder. If they are going for that "suburban mall feel" with this design, they hit the nail on the head.

    They should really try harder with this building. They do not need another Pallisades Plaza/Queensborough Plaza/Manhattan Mall thing here.

    They may have the cash to make this something more desirable and pleasant to look at, rather than a stretside posting of "Chevy's", "Target" and "Duane Reede".

    If they take as much time and consideration as they have with some of the parking structures that have been introduced in the past few years, we may end up with a REAL plaza rather than a mall that is named "plaza".

  11. #2351

    Default

    MIKE'S PLANS DOOM DOWNTOWN: HONCHO
    NY Post
    By TOM TOPOUSIS


    February 21, 2006 -- Mayor Bloomberg's plan to
    downsize office towers at Ground Zero while the
    city pushes ahead with a new business district on
    the West Side would be a "death knell for lower
    Manhattan," a top downtown rebuilding official told The Post.

    "We are putting in literally billions of dollars
    in transit infrastructure upgrades in lower
    Manhattan," the official said. "We're doing that
    because we assured the restoration of the financial capital of the world."

    But the mayor's plan to build a new West Side
    office district around an extension of the No. 7
    subway line would create competition for the same
    corporate tenants being recruited for a rebuilt
    World Trade Center, the official said.

    "It would be a death knell for lower Manhattan as
    a viable world financial capital," the official said.

    The dire prediction comes as tensions mount
    between City Hall and Gov. Pataki over their
    visions for the World Trade Center * and as
    downtown real-estate interests say the mayor's
    rhetoric is scaring off prospective tenants.

    Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff insists that the
    far West Side business district isn't intended to
    compete with lower Manhattan.

    "We've never viewed it that way," Doctoroff said.
    "We think our job is to create a variety of
    different office products because not everybody
    wants the same thing. We need space in Midtown and downtown and in Brooklyn."

    Pataki's plan for rebuilding the World Trade
    Center calls for replacing 10 million square feet
    of office space destroyed on Sept. 11 in five new
    buildings, including the 1,776-foot-tall Freedom Tower.

    Bloomberg in recent months has called for
    replacing about 10 percent of that office space
    with 700 apartments and a hotel * effectively
    taking one of the office towers, slated for a
    site on Church Street, off the office market.

    The mayor has called for a second tower on Church
    Street to become the new home of the Port
    Authority, which owns the World Trade Center site.

    Officials familiar with Pataki's vision for
    downtown say those two building sites, known as
    Towers 3 and 4, are essential for corporate
    tenants because they are large enough to
    accommodate trading floors that the financial
    industry covets. These large sites are also in
    short supply anywhere in the city, except for the
    West Side. Doctoroff said mixing residential,
    hotel and retail space in with the World Trade
    Center towers will only speed up the rebuilding
    process at a time when finding corporate tenants is proving difficult.

    But he said downtown would retain an advantage
    because financial incentives from the state and
    city for businesses to locate in lower Manhattan
    are more generous than what will be offered on the West Side.

    Plans for the West Side call for 24 million
    square feet of office space and 13,000
    apartments. Tax revenues from the office towers
    will pay off a $3 billion bond to build the
    subway and a new boulevard between 10th and 11th
    avenues. Doctoroff said the city will begin
    selling bonds this summer, with construction of
    the 7-line extension to begin by November. The
    project is expected to create a new station at
    11th Avenue and 34th Street by 2012.

    The first new commercial tower is expected to go
    up on the West Side by 2012, with 1 million or
    more square feet of new space built every year
    afterward * even as City Hall argues there isn't
    enough demand for office space downtown.

    The rebuilding official insisted that he's not
    against developing the West Side * once downtown
    is rebuilt. "The West Side can and should be
    developed at some time," said the official.

  12. #2352
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    The "development official" sure sounds like Silverstein.

  13. #2353

    Default Silverstein's Ad On Today's NYT OpEd Page

    SOME TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE.
    WE BUILD IT.


    Silverstein Properties: A New York City company since 1956. Silverstein Properties is one of New York’s most successful and respected real estate developers. The firm has accomplished $8 billion in transactions, and has developed and improved more than

    20 million square feet of prime real estate. We’ve succeeded by betting on New York and New Yorkers, even when conventional wisdom suggested otherwise. Today, we are committed to using our experience to build a brighter, more vibrant future for all of Downtown. Rebuilding the World Trade Center will transform the area into the Rockefeller Center of the 21st century—a world-class, 24/7 mixed-use community.

    The World Trade Center plan is in place. Back in November 2004, the state, the city, the Port Authority, the LMDC and Silverstein Properties agreed on Daniel Libeskind’s Master Plan to rebuild the World Trade Center site. The plan calls for the office space that was destroyed on September 11, 2001, to be rebuilt in five new buildings, including the 1,776-foot tall Freedom Tower. A rebuilt World Trade Center will re-establish Downtown as the country's leading financial center, but with an even more dynamic cultural and retail component, and surrounded by a growing residential community.

    7 World Trade Center—built and financed by Silverstein. After five years, one new building stands at Ground Zero: 7 World Trade Center at 250 Greenwich— a building widely acknowledged as a state-of-the-art masterpiece. Silverstein Properties designed, financed, built and completed this building—on time and on budget—and is now leasing space to world-class tenants. Our success at the WTC site shows that, when government gives us the go-ahead, Silverstein Properties gets it done.

    The time for action is now, New York. Now we would like to use this momentum to do something all New Yorkers would like to see—finish the WTC project. Silverstein Properties’ combination of New York experience and understanding of the World Trade Center is unrivaled by other developers. Our history at the site, lease rights and insurance proceeds ensure that we can start right now—something no developer anywhere can claim. And the
    sooner we start, the sooner New York can get on with its future as the greatest city in the world. New York, the time for action is now. We’re ready to rebuild. We know you are, too.

    www.wtc.com
    www.silversteinproperties.com

  14. #2354

    Default Architects for Silverstein are lined up

    Quote Originally Posted by JMGarcia
    Even if he can't start until 2008, Silverstein's completion date of 2017 is still absurd IMO. The reality of the situation is that towers 3 and 4 need to start design now if they are going to start construction by 2008. Silverstein is obviously not that far along to be considering designs of 3 and 4.

    Furthermore, I, surprisingly, tend to trust the PA's choice of what to build more than Silverstein's at this point soley based on the Calatrava vs. Childs comparison. Of course, Foster's tower might change my opinion on that.
    From what I understand, Silverstein has architects lined up for towers 3 and 4. Although it would be somewhat premeture to announce them, they are supposed to be of the Foster quality. Problem is, it isn't clear how they would design in conjunction with the PA who is building the lower levels.

    Also, design of lower levels of towers 3 and 4 could change based on possible needs of tenants. I believe that the hope is that interest in 3 and 4 will increase once a final plan is settled and Towers 1 and 2 are in process. With WTC 7, that would make 3 buildings certain on the site. A company might then be more interested in becoming an anchor tenant in one of tower 3 or 4. As I understand it, anchor tenants may ask for specific designs on floors, in particular, the lower floors with more square footage.

    I believe that both Silverstein and the PA will work for high quality designs. The issue is whether this prime commercial real estate should be for government offices or private commerce. Note that government spends taxpayer money, while private enterprise generates it. Which do you think should get the prime locations?

  15. #2355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davestanke
    From what I understand, Silverstein has architects lined up for towers 3 and 4. Although it would be somewhat premeture to announce them, they are supposed to be of the Foster quality. Problem is, it isn't clear how they would design in conjunction with the PA who is building the lower levels.

    Also, design of lower levels of towers 3 and 4 could change based on possible needs of tenants. I believe that the hope is that interest in 3 and 4 will increase once a final plan is settled and Towers 1 and 2 are in process. With WTC 7, that would make 3 buildings certain on the site. A company might then be more interested in becoming an anchor tenant in one of tower 3 or 4. As I understand it, anchor tenants may ask for specific designs on floors, in particular, the lower floors with more square footage.

    I believe that both Silverstein and the PA will work for high quality designs. The issue is whether this prime commercial real estate should be for government offices or private commerce. Note that government spends taxpayer money, while private enterprise generates it. Which do you think should get the prime locations?
    The only government offices ever spoken about are for the PA themselves. I have absolutely no problem with them locating their headquarters there. Whether this part of the site is developed by Silverstein or another developer, the PA still owns the land so I don't see a difference there either. I don't understand why giving this portion of the site to another developer suddenly makes them government offices.

Similar Threads

  1. Winter Garden of World Financial Center - Recent pictures
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: August 31st, 2016, 12:04 PM
  2. Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 21st, 2010, 09:17 PM
  3. Building Art at Rockefeller Center
    By ZippyTheChimp in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: June 26th, 2009, 02:40 PM
  4. East 57th Street Tops Retail List Highest Rents In the World
    By noharmony in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 30th, 2008, 12:33 PM
  5. Jazz at Lincoln Center - Time Warner Center
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 16th, 2007, 12:47 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