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 317 of 407 FirstFirst ... 217267307313314315316317318319320321327367 ... LastLast
Results 4,741 to 4,755 of 6091

Thread: World Trade Center Developments

  1. #4741
    Forum Veteran Daquan13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    East Boston, MA.
    Posts
    2,728

    Default

    But isn't he still paying tons of rent money to the PA for the land?

    Land with which only one office tower has been rebuilt on so far since the terror attacks?

  2. #4742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynLove View Post
    Then why would the PA offer to chip in hundreds of millions in financing
    I'm going by what has been published about the contract over the years, and information from the article.

    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.
    Now, if the argument is breach of contract, why wasn't the arbitration filed as such?

    KZ stated
    The Port Authority was never supposed to finance the office towers.
    An ""offer to chip in" doesn't mean they're contractually obligated to do so. The PA has an interest in the project getting completed.

    If you think that's inaccurate, then post information to support it. Show us the contract clause.

  3. #4743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daquan13 View Post
    But isn't he still paying tons of rent money to the PA for the land?
    Yes, Silverstein pays the PA rent. I think $10 million per month.

    What he is paying for is the right to hold onto a long-term lease. That has tremendous value in itself. After 09/22, Silverstein could have defaulted on his rent payments. The lease agreement would have been terminated, and after insurance settlements, could have walked away.

    He chose to hold the lease.

  4. #4744
    Forum Veteran Daquan13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    East Boston, MA.
    Posts
    2,728

    Default

    Maybe he wants to hold all of the cards and expose the PA for what they really are;

    A bunch of double-crossing double-dealing crooks who just keep on playing games and stalling tactics - possibly to lure Silverstein into walking away from it all.

    That they've NEVER played with a full deck from Day One when plans to rebuild Ground Zero first got underway.

    And BTW, I can only remember one time that the PA has manned up, and that is when they had admitted to blatently not having the land prepped in time for the towers to begin their foundation work.
    Last edited by Daquan13; August 5th, 2009 at 05:44 AM.

  5. #4745

    Default Stalling tactics

    Let's see. Delays cost $300,000 per day in penalties. That comes to $9 million per month, which wipes out all but $1 million in rent payments from Silverstein.

    Silverstein still gets his development fees.

    Also, as landowner, the PA pays PILOT (payments in lieu of property tax) to NYC on the entire site, built or not. The same payments are made on the DB site. Tax drain on land with only one source of revenue - PATH.

    Yeah, so stalling is definitely the way to go. You really have it figured out, Daquan.

  6. #4746

    Default

    I don't think the Port is deliberately stalling. They're just indeliberately incompetent. It's not bad faith; it's just the nature of the beast. Government employees don't have their own money in the game. They go home at 5 pm either way. It takes a private developer -- a guy for whom construction speed means the difference between becoming vastly rich and filing for bankruptcy -- to get a building up into the air with any haste.

  7. #4747
    Forum Veteran Daquan13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    East Boston, MA.
    Posts
    2,728

    Default

    Zippy, that is the cost of doing business.

    They need to crap or get off the pot. I think that it's high time that the PA stop this nonsense and get down to the busines or matter at hand - let the towers on the Eastern half be built!

  8. #4748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daquan13 View Post
    Zippy, that is the cost of doing business.
    What is? I have no idea what you're talking about.

    let the towers on the Eastern half be built!
    Interesting choice of grammar. Not "let someone build them," but "let them be built." All by themselves?

    One block north on Church & Barclay, there was a nice building that Silverstein bought, demolished, and dug a big hole in the ground, promising a new tower. It's stalled.

    "Let the tower be built."

    Of course I'm being sarcastic. Towers don't build themselves, do they?

  9. #4749
    Forum Veteran Daquan13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    East Boston, MA.
    Posts
    2,728

    Default

    Unless you believe in fairy tales & magic.

  10. #4750

    Default

    ^
    Posts like that don't serve any purpose.

  11. #4751
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    I would be shocked if Silverstein is pushing so hard for arbitration and rejecting PA's offers to contribute financing w/o something concrete in the contract on this issue.

  12. #4752

    Default

    ^
    I've been involved in arbitration hearings.

    The first order of charges is a violation of contract. Most clear-cut and easiest to prove.

    Further down the list are things like:

    Unfair treatment
    Unilateral actions
    Ignoring established past-practices

    If the PA had decided to renege on its promise to lease space in tower 4 (for whatever reason), that would be a contract violation. The same for any transfer of funds.

    Stuff like that doesn't usually get to arbitration. Lawyers know what happens.

    I would guess that Silverstein is going to argue that the PA should be penalized for actions that prevent Silverstein from fulfilling the contract. An award by the arbitrator is in line with the make-whole concept.

  13. #4753
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Research folks, research! Instead of babbling hollow impulsive statements. From 3 years ago.....

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    Amid Talk of Three Impressive Buildings,
    Silence on One Important Issue

    NY TIMES
    By CHARLES V. BAGLI
    September 8, 2006

    There was supposed to be one more big ground zero announcement yesterday to dispel the notion that progress is slow in rebuilding Lower Manhattan.

    The Pataki administration had hoped that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey would formally approve the revised master plan to build four new office towers at the World Trade Center site, clearing the way for construction only days before the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack. It would have been a public relations coup when combined with the developer Larry A. Silverstein’s unveiling of designs for three of the towers by world-renowned architects.

    But a tentative meeting of the Port Authority board was canceled. Negotiations between Mr. Silverstein and state, city and Port Authority officials foundered on Labor Day over several key issues, mostly related to money and timing. Mr. Silverstein, however, did show off his building designs.

    “There are still some outstanding issues,” said Charles A. Gargano, vice chairman of the Port Authority and the state’s top economic development official. “I believe they’ll be worked out. It’ll take fairness on both sides. If Silverstein Properties negotiates in good faith, it can be done.”

    Although both sides say there has been progress and they will complete the deal in time for the Port Authority’s regularly scheduled Sept. 21 board meeting, some officials once again accused Mr. Silverstein of being “greedy.”

    Executives working with the developer expressed disappointment that officials had focused on a few remaining issues instead of recognizing all that had been accomplished. And they countered that the Port Authority’s bureaucracy was moving too slowly, raising the project’s cost by hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when construction costs are rising 2 percent a month.

    “Tremendous progress has been made in discussions between the Port Authority and Silverstein,” said Janno Lieber, who oversees the project for Mr. Silverstein. “We fully expect the deal to be finalized as scheduled in the very near future.”

    A tentative agreement in April between Mr. Silverstein and government officials was supposed to have put an end to years of acrimony. Under that plan, Mr. Silverstein surrendered to the Port Authority control of the $2 billion Freedom Tower and a second site nearby. He retained the rights to build the other three towers on the east side of the 16-acre trade center property, along Greenwich Avenue. The Port Authority, in turn, had to complete the excavation and site preparation for the towers along Greenwich Street in 2007 so that Mr. Silverstein could begin construction and complete the work by 2012.

    The agreement cut Mr. Silverstein’s development fee in half, to 2½ percent. To ensure that he could get a mortgage and build quickly, the city and the authority offered to lease a combined 1.2 million square feet of space in what is known as Tower 4, the smallest of the three new towers.

    According to state and Port Authority officials, negotiations over a final agreement were progressing quickly enough that Gov. George E. Pataki pushed for the Port Authority to meet yesterday, two weeks earlier than planned. Officials complained that Mr. Silverstein tried to use the governor’s eagerness for a deal to extract concessions worth tens of millions of dollars, something Silverstein executives denied vehemently yesterday.

    In recent days, officials said, Mr. Silverstein said that he wanted the city and the authority to pay $78 a square foot for their office space, far more than the $50 a square foot officials assumed in April and $20 more than they offered in recent talks, according to state and Port Authority officials.

    The officials said that Mr. Silverstein’s rent number for a building in 2012 was exuberant, even for the perpetually optimistic developer. The average rent today for first-class office space downtown is $41.78 a square foot.

    The Silverstein camp offered to put the matter into the hands of a arbitrator, a suggestion that the Port Authority rejected.

    In a speech on Wednesday about the resurgence of Lower Manhattan, Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff said jokingly, “Larry Silverstein is so confident in the future that he’s already raising the rent for the space the city will take in Tower 4.”

    He returned to the subject at yesterday’s news conference about the building designs: “What we are unveiling today is a true testament, Larry, to you and to your vision, to your perseverance, which we all wish sometimes you didn’t have as much of.”

    Another contentious issue involves the Port Authority’s obligation to excavate the sites along Greenwich Street by mid-2007, which would allow Mr. Silverstein to begin construction and adhere to the strict schedule laid out in April. Mr. Silverstein now contends that the Port Authority will not complete the work until sometime in 2008. Because of the delay, Mr. Silverstein said he should be entitled to a rent reduction over seven months, which officials said could be worth as much as $50 million.

    Port Authority officials countered that they have now figured out an engineering plan that would allow them to do the work by mid-2007.

    The developer remains unconvinced.


    Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

  14. #4754
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by BPC View Post
    I don't think the Port is deliberately stalling. They're just indeliberately incompetent. It's not bad faith; it's just the nature of the beast. Government employees don't have their own money in the game. They go home at 5 pm either way. It takes a private developer -- a guy for whom construction speed means the difference between becoming vastly rich and filing for bankruptcy -- to get a building up into the air with any haste.
    Abso-freaking-lutely correct BPC!

    Now if people bothered to do any reasearch and read the previous post you can understand a bit more of what is going on.

    The PA are a bunch of incompetents, inepts, LOOK at the ridiculous plan that they trotted out there in 2006....
    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    Port Authority officials countered that they have now figured out an engineering plan that would allow them to do the work by mid-2007.

    Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
    And that little rodent Silverstein knew all along....

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    The developer remains unconvinced.


    And now he has had 3 yrs to get his legal team to exploit these idiots [the PA] for their incompentence so that he doesnt loose out.




    Just outrageous on one end on the unscruples of a developer and on the other end on the intellectual shortcomings and inadequacies of a large agency. And in the middle a city desperately trying to recover from its open wound. But the unsanitary conditions provided by the PA that allow for flesh eating bacteria, like Silverstein, wont permit closure.

  15. #4755
    Moderator NYatKNIGHT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Manhattan - South Village
    Posts
    4,240

    Default

    I don't disagree with BPC's statement either, but let's be clear, Silverstein could be and could have been building on the T2 and T3 sites the same way he is building on the T4 site. All along there has been little difference about their degree of "readiness". Remember work actually started on T3 together with T4, but suddenly stopped.

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