World Trade Center Developments

[JMGarcia]

NY Times

Ever since 9/11 this page has urged that the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site be conducted in the public eye whenever possible. What has happened in the past few months is a reminder that openness is absolutely vital.

It has gradually become clear that the developer of the first stages of this project will be Larry Silverstein, who headed a group that bought the lease on the twin towers from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey weeks before they fell. Some of the central figures in the redevelopment process had airily predicted he would be long gone by now, bought off for a portion of the insurance money by the powers that be. But Mr. Silverstein has started to look like the real stayer. Although there's been no official announcement, he appears to have been designated as the man who will bring to life the conceptual vision of the architect Daniel Libeskind, whose design for ground zero was chosen at the end of a very public process.

Mr. Silverstein vows to rebuild the site swiftly and "superbly." But his idea of superb may not always coincide with the public's or with Mr. Libeskind's. He is currently erecting a new building on the edge of the trade center site, and the neighborhood has been unhappy with the narrow way he wants to carry out agreed-upon designs there. The public does not have an adequate way of seeing and assessing his proposed changes to the Libeskind concept since much of the planning process is taking place in private.

Mr. Libeskind's original plan, which was executed rapidly for a competition, was inevitably going to be changed before it could be carried out on this complex site. But we worry that the entire vision is in danger of being hijacked, "refined" into something that falls far short of its original promise. Mr. Silverstein talks publicly about how his buildings at ground zero will "reflect" Mr. Libeskind's ideas, but he seems to be contemplating major changes, including moving Mr. Libeskind's 1,776-foot tower — a shift that could undermine its impact on New York's skyline. Mr. Silverstein also claims he has an obligation to restore at least 10 million square feet of office space to the site, which he proposes doing by 2012. One version of Mr. Libeskind's plan did make room for that much office space — eventually. But Mr. Silverstein's urgency threatens to create too much, too soon, and crowd out the chance to make Lower Manhattan a vibrant, attractive residential community as well as a center of business and tourism.

Lower Manhattan needs a developer, and Mr. Silverstein may be the most logical choice. Thanks to insurance proceeds, he already has $1.3 billion and he could receive between $3.5 billion and $7 billion more. Gov. George Pataki wants work to begin as soon as possible, and Mr. Silverstein already has the resources to make that happen — as well as the legal muscle to slow down anyone else trying to replace him.

But this cannot ever be treated as a normal real estate development, in which Mr. Silverstein would be expected to maximize return on every dollar of investment. The 16-acre site is owned by the Port Authority and the billions in insurance proceeds are compensation for the destruction of public property. On Sept. 11 that public property also became, in a very different sense, a public trust, a place consecrated in our memories and imaginations. Mr. Silverstein's rights under his lease — a document that should be made readily available to the public — cannot prevail over the public's interest in this land. Mr. Silverstein speaks passionately about his mission to rebuild the trade center site, and the last thing he would want is to give the impression that he, his firm or his heirs might make an obscene profit as a result of this tragedy.

Besides Mr. Silverstein, the man who has emerged as the key figure in the redevelopment is Governor Pataki, who controls the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and — along with the governor of New Jersey — the Port Authority. Mr. Pataki has to make sure that Mr. Silverstein's plans are in accord with the public expectation of what ground zero should look like. But he can't do it alone. He must make certain that the people are kept abreast of what is going on. The more open and transparent this process, the more likely it is that what emerges at ground zero is a vision as close as possible to Mr. Libeskind's plan and to the aspirations of us all.

[ZippyTheChimp]

But this cannot ever be treated as a normal real estate development, in which Mr. Silverstein would be expected to maximize return on every dollar of investment.

That's exactly what Silverstein has been doing. If the reason for building tall is to maximize site use, in this case the real estate is constant, so it would make economic sense for Silverstein to spread out his buildings.

[TonyO]

Quote: from JMGarcia on 3:26 am on July 14, 2003
The public does not have an adequate way of seeing and assessing his proposed changes to the Libeskind concept since much of the planning process is taking place in private.

Mr. Libeskind's original plan, which was executed rapidly for a competition, was inevitably going to be changed before it could be carried out on this complex site. But we worry that the entire vision is in danger of being hijacked, "refined" into something that falls far short of its original promise. Mr. Silverstein talks publicly about how his buildings at ground zero will "reflect" Mr. Libeskind's ideas, but he seems to be contemplating major changes, including moving Mr. Libeskind's 1,776-foot tower — a shift that could undermine its impact on New York's skyline.

The premise of this article is flawed. *Arguing that Silverstein is unjust in ignoring the public doesn't hold here, since he is really ignoring Pataki (and the 13% or so of the public who favored Libeskind's design.)

It seems that Silverstein is going to go along with the 1776 ft. tower in his plan. *Neither Libeskind nor Pataki argued for anything more, hence there is no taller buildings coming out of this either way.

(Edited by tonyo at 10:15 am on July 14, 2003)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Arguing that Silverstein is unjust in ignoring the * public doesn't hold here, since he is really ignoring Pataki (and the 13% or so of the public who favored Libeskind's design.)

Your use of this statistic is flawed.

[JMGarcia]

The premise of this article is flawed. *Arguing that Silverstein is unjust in ignoring the public doesn't hold here, since he is really ignoring Pataki (and the 13% or so of the public who favored Libeskind's design.)

It seems that Silverstein is going to go along with the 1776 ft. tower in his plan. *Neither Libeskind nor Pataki argued for anything more, hence there is no taller buildings coming out of this either way.

My take on the premise of the article is that Silverstein should not be allowed to develop the site as he wants, in secret, with no public input.

There's no need to see everything as either a pro or anti Libeskind's design thus ignoring all other angles. That sort of fixation will lead to ideological rather than logical criticism of the site. Automatic Libeskind=bad and thus Silverstein=good because Larry has opposed some of Libeskind's design plans does a diservice to everyone.

Without Silverstein making anything public other than his height limits we are in no position to decide who's plan is best.

[TonyO]

Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 10:21 am on July 14, 2003

Arguing that Silverstein is unjust in ignoring the * public doesn't hold here, since he is really ignoring Pataki (and the 13% or so of the public who favored Libeskind's design.)

Your use of this statistic is flawed.

Whoops. *I should have added the +/- 3% points for statistical variation. *:-)

Seriously though, anywhere from 12-16% of the many polls taken showed favor for Libeskind of the original proposals. *Its not exact, but its meant to get the point across that there is no mandate.

[TonyO]

Quote: from JMGarcia on 10:50 am on July 14, 2003

My take on the premise of the article is that Silverstein should not be allowed to develop the site as he wants, in secret, with no public input.

Agreed. *He should be held accountable for anything he comes out with. *He doesn't come across that risky though. *Especially in this WTC quagmire, I don't expect him to release anything outrageous at least by this board's standards.

But saying he should do such-and-such because it goes along with the 'winner' is a stretch.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Whoops. *I should have added the +/- 3% points for statistical variation. *:-)

I don't doubt the accuracy of the number, but the implication is that 87% of the public have no interest in one or more of the many aspects of the site. Ironically, I think that this percentage would include you, but I doubt that is the case. You are still interested, aren't you?

[Jasonik]

Mr. Silverstein talks publicly about how his buildings at ground zero will "reflect" Mr. Libeskind's ideas, but he seems to be contemplating major changes, including moving Mr. Libeskind's 1,776-foot tower — a shift that could undermine its impact on New York's skyline.

For the sake of minimizing the prevailing Northwesterly winter winds within the memorial site, Libeskind placed his tall tower in this position for a design reason. *Architects are paid to think about things like this. *
The LMDC and Libeskind have an ethical obligation to do what is best for the public, and Silverstein will try to maximize his profit within the constraints of the LMDC's planning.
Rooting for one or the other to roll over and give up seems wrongheaded, we should wish they do battle in full view so the integrity of the final result will not be in question. *

[JMGarcia]

It looks like the Libeskind site plan as shown in his renderings is coming even closer to being embraced by the PA with the fifth tower on the DB site.
------------------------------
Officials Favor Larger Site for Trade Center Complex
By DAVID W. DUNLAP NY Times


Struggling to solve an urban-planning Rubik's Cube, the Port Authority is now inclined to expand the World Trade Center redevelopment site to the south by acquiring the property on which the doomed Deutsche Bank tower stands.

Since planning began last year, it has never been clear how the trade center superblock alone could comfortably accommodate 10 million square feet of commercial space — roughly what used to be there — and also provide room for a memorial, transportation and cultural centers, new streets, shops and the space and infrastructure below ground needed to make it work.

"If we maximized it to 10 million square feet, I don't think it would be as distinguished as if we were to move some of that square footage off the site," Joseph J. Seymour, executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said in a telephone interview yesterday.

"It would make it better from a city planning point of view to move one of the buildings to the Deutsche Bank site," he said.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Seymour said, that prospect has been in the public eye for months, since one of the best-known renderings of the redevelopment plan by Studio Daniel Libeskind clearly shows a large new building on that site, bounded by Liberty, Albany, Washington and Greenwich Streets.

While public discussion has focused on the memorial, the Freedom Tower and the Wedge of Light, the Port Authority turned its attention to Daniel Libeskind's idea for a 50-story tower on the property owned by Deutsche Bank, whose building was damaged in the Sept. 11 attack.

"We said, `Let's at least explore it and see what it would buy us,' " said Anthony G. Cracchiolo, director of priority capital programs at the Port Authority. "In this preliminary look-see, it looks like it could buy us a lot."

Mr. Seymour said the Port Authority has held discussions with the bank, which an official at Deutsche Bank confirmed. Whether the property would be purchased or acquired by condemnation is subject to future negotiation, Mr. Seymour said. The amount of floor area to be built on the site might range from 1.5 million to 2 million square feet.

Kevin M. Rampe, president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said that the corporation's interest is in preserving Mr. Libeskind's architectural vision. "Putting a building on the Deutsche Bank site is one way which would ensure we could realize that vision," he said.

Mr. Seymour said the authority also wanted "to make sure the city is on board" with the proposal, acknowledging the possible interest of the Bloomberg administration in a mixed-use building that also had apartments. Requests for comment from the mayor's press office were not answered.

What stands on the site now, shrouded in black netting, is a 40-story tower formerly known as 1 Bankers Trust Plaza that was taken over in 1999 by Deutsche Bank.

The 1.4 million-square-foot building was seriously damaged in the 2001 attack and has never reopened. After months of uncertainty, it was learned last month that the structure was to be taken down.

The Port Authority also has its eye on a block bounded by Liberty, Cedar, West and Washington Streets. Mr. Seymour said, "That would be the next step" after talks with Deutsche Bank.

An undefined mid-rise building is shown on that block in the Libeskind rendering. A spokesman for the Port Authority said no definite use has been assigned to the site.

This block was where the tiny St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church stood until it was crushed under the collapse of 2 World Trade Center. The rest of the block was a parking lot owned by the Milstein family.

Port Authority planners envision a park on either or both of the southern sites. And they held out the possibility of reconstructing St. Nicholas near its original site.

An important impetus for expanding the site lies below street level, said Robert I. Davidson, chief architect for the Port Authority.

The underground volume at the trade center site will be shared by the sunken memorial; the PATH tracks, passenger platforms, mezzanine, concourse and electrical substation; the subway tunnel for the 1 and 9 trains; utility lines; concourses for commuters and shoppers; and building foundations.

To this, add the labyrinth of driveways, ramps and security devices for inspecting vehicles. "It's a Rubik's Cube," Mr. Davidson said. If the main ramp is on the west, it cuts into the memorial zone. If it is moved eastward, it interferes with tracks, foundations and retail space.

But if the underground security area is moved south of Liberty Street, he said, it creates considerably more flexibility for the ramp network and also opens new space.

If the trade center site alone is used, Mr. Seymour said, it might be necessary to build an office tower directly over the PATH transportation center on Church Street, which renderings show as a vast glass-enclosed chamber.

Mr. Seymour likened that to plans advanced in the 1960's to build a skyscraper over Grand Central Terminal, which New York City fought all the way to the United States Supreme Court. "We're supposed to be smart enough," he said, "to learn from the mistakes of the past."



(Edited by JMGarcia at 4:30 am on July 15, 2003)

[JMGarcia]

Architect and Developer Clash Over Plans for Trade Center Site
By EDWARD WYATT *- NY Times


With pressure increasing to begin the rebuilding at ground zero, the architect with the winning design for the World Trade Center site plans to meet today with representatives of the developer to try to resolve clashing visions of what will be built.

The meeting between the architect, Daniel Libeskind, and senior aides to the developer, Larry A. Silverstein, is the latest attempt by rebuilding officials to force an agreement over the future of the site and the degree of Mr. Libeskind's influence in the design and placement of the commercial office buildings there.

Mr. Libeskind claims a public mandate on the project's future after his design was chosen over eight other proposals in a competition of renowned architects. His vision is of a spiral of five towers — including one 1,776-foot spire — surrounding a hallowed, empty ground on the site where the twin towers once stood.

But Mr. Silverstein believes the details of the commercial development are up to him. He advocates a more compact site containing all of the office space that was once there, saying that other arrangements would threaten the project's commercial viability.

Because he obtained the lease for the site less than two months before the Sept. 11 attack, his vow afterward to rebuild the fallen towers was all but laughed off. But now he has emerged as the single person who can meet Gov. George E. Pataki's aggressive timeline for beginning the rebuilding, and in the process he has seized much of the initiative from Mr. Libeskind.

In his effort to mold the project to his liking, Mr. Silverstein has persuaded the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the trade center property, to consider several changes to Mr. Libeskind's vision, and he has even hired his own architect — one of Mr. Libeskind's rivals in the design competition — to come up with plans.

After prodding by the developer, the Port Authority asked Mr. Libeskind to study the effect of moving his signature 1,776-foot tower to the eastern portion of the site, closer to a planned new transit hub, and to consider adding an office tower above that train station.

Mr. Libeskind has fought back, however, claiming his winning design should hold sway. And he has backed up that assertion by hiring Edward W. Hayes, the scrappy Manhattan lawyer who was a classmate of Gov. George E. Pataki at Columbia Law School and was a model for the lawyer Tommy Killian in Tom Wolfe's novel "The Bonfire of the Vanities," to negotiate with Mr. Silverstein.

Whether any final decisions will emerge from today's meeting, which will also include officials from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the Port Authority, is unclear. Mr. Libeskind is seeking a clearly defined role in the design of the outside of the 1,776-foot tower, while Mr. Silverstein would like Mr. Libeskind to agree to a different design being put together by David M. Childs, the architect who has worked extensively with Mr. Silverstein.

To that end, Mr. Silverstein's office sent a letter last week to officials at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is overseeing the rebuilding effort, and the Port Authority, claiming that delays in decisions about the location and size of buildings could cause him to miss a summer 2004 deadline that Governor Pataki has set for construction to begin.

What is clear from the battle is that Mr. Silverstein has transformed his place in the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan in recent months.

When Mr. Libeskind unveiled his design in February, Mr. Silverstein rushed to embrace him, and rebuilding officials were loath to give a formal role to Mr. Silverstein in the process.

But Mr. Silverstein continued to push. With the state and the city facing vast budget gaps, it became clear that Mr. Silverstein alone had the money to begin the rebuilding effort. In April, after Mr. Pataki laid out his timeline to complete the erection of steel on the 1,776-foot tower by the end of his term in 2006, he made clear that he was handing over much of the responsibility for the rebuilding to Mr. Silverstein.

Most recently, when the Port Authority and the development corporation laid out responsibilities for the memorial, the cultural space and the office development at the site, Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, the company controlling the retail space at the trade center, were given specific roles in reviewing their elements of the plan.

All of the parties say publicly that their collaborative effort is proceeding smoothly, and most of them agree that for construction to begin a year from now, as scheduled, the architects will have to begin producing detailed blueprints of the commercial parts of the site soon.

In any large-scale development, conflict normally occurs over details. Pitched battles are taking place over certain features of the memorial to victims of the terrorist attack, and differences have also emerged over the future cultural components of the rebuilt trade center.

So perhaps it is not surprising that behind the scenes, an increasingly rancorous process has threatened to delay the start of office space construction.

Mr. Silverstein believes that the shape and size of Mr. Libeskind's proposed towers will not provide enough space — or the right kind of unobstructed, column-free floor space — for top-flight tenants.

To that end, Mr. Silverstein and Mr. Childs have conceived a design that places the centerpiece tower directly over an office building about 70 floors in height. They also want to move the tower closer to the transportation hub, which they believe will also attract more tenants.

Mr. Libeskind, meanwhile, has pushed to preserve the unique elements of his design, including the off-center spire that forms the top of the 1,776-foot tower, a feature that Mr. Silverstein has contended will push up the building's cost.

The continuing battles produced more pointed public statements yesterday from Mr. Pataki and other rebuilding officials.

"As the governor said when he outlined his ambitious plan for rebuilding Lower Manhattan," said Lisa Dewald Stoll, a spokeswoman for Mr. Pataki, "this process leaves `no room for error or delay, for parochial concerns or unnecessary legal battles.'

"Quite simply," Ms. Stoll added, "you're either part of the team or you're not. The schedule will be met."

Kevin Rampe, the president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said that "the redevelopment of the World Trade Center is bigger than any single individual," and Michael Petralia, a spokesman for the Port Authority, said that he expected that the issues surrounding the site's master plan "will be resolved very quickly." Each also vowed that the governor's deadline would be met.

And Howard J. Rubenstein, a spokesman for the developer, said, "Larry Silverstein agrees with that schedule and will make every effort to meet it."

Mr. Libeskind says such disagreements are simply "part of developing a master plan."

"Of course, we have to stick up for the integrity of our plan as it relates to all those issues," he added. "We can compromise so that the scheme evolves into something that is really workable. But at the same time we must keep some boundaries where we don't negotiate."
-----------------------------
Is Larry just being cheap about the whole thing with a shorter and cheaper tower by SOM?

[NYatKNIGHT]

We need to see Child's tower - it doesn't sound like it's as tall as the Freedom spire. It's unnerving to have Silverstein screwing with the plans like he is.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall at that meeting today.

[TonyO]

Child's tower is supposed to be all of the 1776 ft. that Libeskind's is. *Neither spire has any office space above floor 70.

[Harmonicaman]

Here's a rebuttal to the (above) New York Times article from the New York Post:

By Columnist Steve Cuozzo

July 15, 2003 -- The New York Times has set about punishing its errant reporters not merely by printing corrections, but by running book-length antidotes - like yesterday's about music mogul Steve Gottlieb - setting the record straight in painful and minute detail.
However, it isn't likely we'll see similar remedies for Times editorials that wander far from the truth. As a public service, then, we'll examine yesterday's lead editorial headlined "Ground Zero Developments," a plea for more "openness" in the planning process for the World Trade Center site.

The Times is right that too much of what goes on downtown is shrouded in political fog; the byzantine ways of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the Port Authority and leaseholder Larry Silverstein produce near-daily leaks of dubious reliability as to what they're up to, with each new story almost certain to be promptly contradicted by the next.

But everything else in the editorial is laughably disingenuous, deceitful or just plain false. Here are some of the howlers:

* "It has gradually become clear that the developer of the first stages of this project will be Larry Silverstein . . . some of the central figures in the redevelopment process had airily predicted he would be long gone by now . . . "

No - if any "central figures" made such a prediction, they did so not "airily," but in the very darkness the Times says it deplores. There is scant evidence, if any, of a single instance of a "central figure" - i.e., Gov. Pataki, Lower Manhattan Development Corp. honchos John Whitehead, Lou Tomson, Kevin Rampe or PA chief Joe Seymour - saying any such thing in public.

* " . . . Although there has been no official announcement, [Silverstein] appears to have been designated as the man who will bring to life the conceptual vision of the architect Daniel Libeskind, whose design . . . was chosen at the end of a very public process."

*

Where do we begin? Silverstein does not need to be "designated" - he owns the leasehold. And since when does Silverstein work for Libeskind?

Lest anyone forget, it was one man - Gov. Pataki, a man of no known architectural or aesthetic credentials - who selected Libeskind over the rival Think team, whose design had the endorsement of the LMDC's planning committee, the Real Estate Board of New York and of the Times' own architectural critic.

* Silverstein's "idea of superb may not always coincide with the public's or with Mr. Libeskind's."

The language suggests that the public's idea of what Ground Zero needs is similar to Libeskind's. In fact, poll after poll has found that the public has no love whatsoever for Libeskind's design, and that in fact, half of all New Yorkers would like to see the Twin Towers rebuilt as they were.

* "Mr. Silverstein . . . claims an obligation to restore at least 10 million square feet of office space to the site . . . One version of Mr. Libeskind's plan did make room for that much office space - eventually."

This makes it sound as if that "one version" of Libeskind's plan was no longer active. In fact, of course, it is the current version - the very one Pataki, the LMDC and the PA unveiled to the public a few months ago, and which is now the operative model for the site.

* "Mr. Silverstein's urgency threatens to create too much [office space], too soon, and crowd out the chance to make Lower Manhattan a vibrant, attractive residential community as well as a center of business and tourism."

The Times accurately notes that Silverstein is talking about building the 10 million square feet by 2012. But how can the gradual restoration over nine years of office space that existed - and was fully occupied - prior to 9/11 be considered "too much, too soon?"

Here is the crux of the matter: The Times is once again pushing its transparent real estate agenda in only slightly fuzzier language than it did previously. Its opposition to rebuilding Downtown's lost office space just happens to coincide with the agenda of Forest City Ratner, the Times Co.'s development partner in the newspaper's new headquarters tower in Midtown.

The Times at least has knocked off the nonsense about an alleged "glut" of office space, perhaps embarrassed by reminders that the Times' new tower - where 650,000 square feet are yet to be leased - will itself contribute to this "glut."

But Ratner's ambitions in Brooklyn are threatened by a commercially reinvigorated Downtown, and it's a matter of record that Ratner has sought zoning changes to allow more big office buildings in Brooklyn. In fact, it has already lured two big companies from Downtown that were displaced by 9/11 - Empire Blue Cross and Bank of New York - to launch new towers at MetroTech and at Atlantic Center.

* "The 16-acre site is owned by the Port Authority and the billions in [Silverstein's] insurance proceeds are compensation for the destruction of public property."

With all due respect to the need to ensure the appropriateness of new development at Ground Zero, what was destroyed on 9/11 was not public property. Silverstein and his partners' purchase of the 99-year leasehold months prior to the attack was tantamount to ownership. That is why the long-planned sale of the leasehold by the PA was always referred to as privatization of the WTC.

We're waiting to see if the Times comes through with an Editor's Note calling attention to the editorial's fatuousness - but we won't hold our breath.

[Freedom Tower]

This might be a good thing. If Silverstein wants the spire to be centered on top of the 70 story tower he may want to make it thicker. A thin spire like that on top of the 70 story tower would look really bad. Perhaps they'll make it thicker now :). Does anyone know exactly what's going on with Deustche Bank? The 50 story tower they said may replace it, will that be part of Libeskinds original plan, or just an extra tower? Hopefully it's an extra, otherwise all the space lost in Deustche Bank wont be replaced :(.