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 269 of 406 FirstFirst ... 169219259265266267268269270271272273279319369 ... LastLast
Results 4,021 to 4,035 of 6089

Thread: World Trade Center Developments

  1. #4021

    Default

    If a public structure collapses on and destroys a church, and then the public agency wants to take advantage of its own negligence to also seize the land on which the church sits, then yes, public funds should have to compensate the church, the same way such funds would have to compensate a McDonald's if that's what had been crushed. Not sure what exactly about this is problematic.

  2. #4022

    Default

    I must agree with that.

    Just because the church was modest and little doesn't mean it was worthless. Milstein offered them millions for the land in the early 90s.

  3. #4023
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    BPC: What do you mean by your continuing arguement regarding "negligence"?

    And what happened to any insurance money due / payable to the church?

    Or did the church fail to insure its property?

    Aside from that ...

    The amount paid should relate to the value of the land / property, which in this case was previously a 1,200 sf parcel of land and a 4,800 sf structure.

    The price agreed to be paid to the Church group for land + new structure = ~ $60,000,000.

    The price paid to Milstein in 2005 for ~ 1/2 acre = $59,000,000.00

    1 acre = 43,560 square feet

    1/2 acre = 21,780 sf

    $59,000,000 / 21,780 sf = $2,709 / sf

    At that rate the church should be compensated ~ $13,000,000 (4,800 sf x $2,700 = $12,960,00)

    On the other hand the amount in $ / sf actually being paid to the Church ...

    $60,000,000 / 4,800 sf = $12,500 / sf

    $60,000,000 / 1,200 sf = $50,000 / sf

    And even if you say, "Well some of that $60M is for a structural platform and a foundation. They're only getting $20,000,000 to build a new church building," then that comes to:

    $20,000,000 / 4,800 sf = $4,167 / sf

    $20,000,000 / 1,200 sf = $16,667 / sf

    Although it seems a real twist of facts to say that the foundation isn't part of the church and should be separated out -- especially when they want to build a "non-denominational" prayer center with some of the money.

    The public shouldn't be in the business of funding or building religious buildings. Compensate the church for their loss and then let them build what they can.

  4. #4024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    The price paid to Milstein in 2005 for ~ 1/2 acre = $59,000,000.00
    As part of that land sale, Milstein got exclusive rights to sites 23 and 24 in BPC .

  5. #4025
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    So glad to hear that Milstein got an even bigger piece of the public pie ...

    But just because we got gypped by Milstein we now have to agree to get gypped by the Church, too?

    Hey ... That's OK, and apparently par for the course...

    Seems that all the players in the WTC area are entitled to gyp the public -- Milstein, Greek Orthodox Church, Goldamn Sachs, BMCC, MTA.

    Feel free to add to that list as you look through your wallet for grocery money.

  6. #4026

    Default

    You brought up the comparison, not me.

    And I didn't say we got gypped by Milstein. Maybe we did; maybe we didn't.

  7. #4027
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    BPC brought the Milstein deal into the current discussion and made the comparison. I took his lead.

  8. #4028
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    As part of that land sale, Milstein got exclusive rights to sites 23 and 24 in BPC .
    How did the PA come into ownership of these two BPC sites?

  9. #4029

    Default

    ^
    The PA never owned them.

    Milstein didn't get ownership of the property; he got exclusivity to develop. That meant no RFP to respond to, no competitive bidding.

    The projects were supposed to fast track. That was three years ago. I guess that's warp speed for Milstein.

  10. #4030
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Fleece speed

  11. #4031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    BPC: What do you mean by your continuing arguement regarding "negligence"?
    What? Do we really need to relive this? The PA was repeatedly warned that the Towers could not withstand a collision with a jetliner. (Back then, the concern was an accidental collision, of course.) The owners of the Empire State Building even took out ads in the Times during construction showing a jetliner about to hit the towers. Yet the PA's engineers insisted that the Towers could survive, based on flawed calculations which did not account for the burning jet fuel. Then the PA failed to keep up the fireproofing on the steel beams. And about 1000 other things they did wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    And what happened to any insurance money due / payable to the church? Or did the church fail to insure its property?
    I don't even understand your argument. If I burn down your house, can I claim as a defense that you should have insured it better? Can I also take your land? If the Church had insurance, then the PA would be paying the insurer right now, but the amount of the payment would be the same. (Actually, probably higher, as the insurer would have run a tougher bargain.)

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    The amount paid should relate to the value of the land / property, which in this case was previously a 1,200 sf parcel of land and a 4,800 sf structure.The price agreed to be paid to the Church group for land + new structure = ~ $60,000,000.
    Uh, no it's not. The price is $20M, of which $10M will come from Chase if they develop that property, which they surely will. The remaining $40M is an estimate for the PA to bomb proof the roof of their underground garage, which is for its own benefit, because they don't want the church collapsing through the structure if a bomb hits the garage. This is hardly a "payment" of any value to the Church, which I am sure would prefer not to be sitting on top of a tour bus garage at all. The rest of your equation is based on a payment six times the true one, and is therefore classic baloney.
    Last edited by BPC; July 27th, 2008 at 09:14 PM.

  12. #4032
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Baloney, eh?

    Read the article: $20M + $40M = $60M value for structure to be built. Nothing can go on top without the substructure.

    $40 M is the estimate to build that bomb-proof roof -- a component of the re-construction which is needed in order to build the church above and thereby a required cost. Plus it's a cost which will surely rise and cost us lots more by the time they get it done.

    If the church doesn't want to sit on top of a huge supposedly terrorist-targeted garage (their choice, after all) then why didn't they negotiate a different location? Clearly they like the idea of being at the center of things -- and someplace that allows them to suck money out of the public coffers.

    The negligence angle -- has it ever been ajudicated? Or is the PA just running scared and settling cases?

    And surely the church attempted to get receive some insurance payments, just as Larry S. got paid insurance money for his interest at WTC. Why is he entitled to payment and the church would not be? Same planes. Same damage.

  13. #4033
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    I don't think $60M is that much in the overall scheme of things, especially when we are talking about tens of BILLIONS for the whole WTC site.

  14. #4034
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Sad but true.

    50 million is to 10 billion as 1 is to 200 or 50 mill is .5% of 10 bill.

  15. #4035

    Default

    This has all been covered below, But I found the press release was clearer than the article.


    Port Authority, St. Nicholas Church Reach Ground Zero Deal

    by Eliot Brown | July 28, 2008

    Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.
    St. Nicholas Church before September 11.

    As expected, the Port Authority last week approved the land deal with St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church to allow the Port to use the church's Ground Zero land and build a vehicle security center below.

    The bi-state agency agreed to give the church $20 million ($10 million is supposed to come from JPMorgan Chase for its planned adjacent building, though we'll see if that tower ever happens), along with up to $40 million for infrastructure. The church will get a significantly larger lot than it had prior to September 11, 2001, at 8,100 square feet.

    Release below.
    PORT AUTHORITY AND St. NICHOLAS CHURCH REACH AGREEMENT

    ON REBUILDING CHURCH AT WORLD TRADE CENTER SITE

    Agreement Allows WTC Vehicle Security Center to Move Forward

    The Port Authority and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church have reached an agreement that will allow the 92-year-old church to be rebuilt near its former location at the World Trade Center site. The agreement also resolves a key issue - one of the 15 fundamental issues identified in last month's Port Authority World Trade Center Assessment -- that will allow construction to proceed on the Vehicle Security Center - a vital artery that will serve nearly every facility on the site and is a key driver of schedules and costs of the other projects.

    At its monthly meeting today, the bistate agency's Board of Commissioners authorized an agreement between the Port Authority, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the City of New York and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that will move the site of the Greek Church to allow for access and construction needed for the construction of the Vehicle Security Center.

    Under the agreement, St. Nicholas Church agreed to convey property at 155 Cedar Street - where the church was located before it was destroyed on 9/11 - to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. LMDC, in turn, will transfer the parcel at 130 Liberty Street to the church for its new building. LMDC will then transfer property at 155 Cedar Street, 140 Liberty Street and a portion of 130 Liberty Street to the Port Authority for construction of the South Bathtub, which will house the Vehicle Security Center.

    St. Nicholas will receive up to $20 million in direct costs for the rebuilt church, including $10 million from the Port Authority to mitigate the impact on the cost of building the church over the Vehicle Security Center, and $10 million from a third party as part of a future development agreement for the Tower 5 site. The Port Authority will provide an additional $20 million, up to a maximum of $40 million, to build the infrastructure needed to support the church on top of the Vehicle Security Center.

    As a result of this agreement, the Board approved an $88.6 million contract with the joint venture of E.E. Cruz & Co. and Nicholson, LLC for construction of the walls of the South Bathtub south of the existing World Trade Center site, which will be used ultimately to house the vehicle screening facility and parking for approximately 28 tour buses. The new South Bathtub will be bounded by Liberty, Greenwich, Cedar and West streets.

    Port Authority Chairman Anthony R. Coscia said, "This agreement with the Greek Church brings to a successful close months of negotiations on an issue that, left unresolved, would have affected the successful construction progress we've made in the past two years and the future work we need to do at the World Trade Center site. It represents the Port Authority's firm resolve to do what is necessary to advance the rebuilding process as quickly as possible."

    Port Authority Executive Director Chris Ward said, "Resolving this lynchpin issue in a matter of weeks is a concrete example of the new way of doing business at the World Trade Center site. Much more remains to be done, but this agreement represents an important step forward."

    The St. Nicholas Church land rights claim was one of 15 key issues outlined in the World Trade Center Assessment report, which was commissioned by New York Governor David A. Paterson and released publicly on June 30.

    http://www.observer.com/2008/real-estate/church-deal

    2008 Observer Media Group,
    Last edited by brianac; July 28th, 2008 at 07:38 PM.

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