WTC Tower One - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

**Teno** · February 22nd, 2006, 04:12 PM

Doesn't seem the problem is so much the Freedom Tower as it is the rest of the WTC site. The PA wants to reorganize the lease giving Silverstein the go ahead with the Freedom Tower and divvy up the rest of the WTC site to other developers. This will better the chance of the entire site being completed.

**ablarc** · February 22nd, 2006, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Teno

The PA wants to reorganize the lease giving Silverstein the go ahead with the Freedom Tower and divvy up the rest of the WTC site to other developers. This will better the chance of the entire site being completed.

A plausible theory. Is it true?

**Teno** · February 22nd, 2006, 04:21 PM

At least that's how I understood the last NY Times article.

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.

"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."

**BPC** · February 22nd, 2006, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by ablarc

A plausible theory. Is it true?

It is true that this is the PA's position. There has been no evidence, as far as I can tell, however, that adopting the PA's position will make anything go faster.

**Clarknt67** · February 22nd, 2006, 06:25 PM

"The way you solve that problem is you have multiple developers doing multiple kind of buildings simultaneously."

This may be the key as well. Silverstein doesn't want any residential in the area, and Bloomberg does. Opening it up to other developers is likely to give Bloomberg his way.

**PHLguy** · February 23rd, 2006, 08:24 AM

If that happens do you think

a) The full 10 million SF will be replaced?

b) The current Freedom Tower will be built as planned?

**TallGuy** · February 23rd, 2006, 09:59 AM

Where did I miss it written that Freedom Tower will not get built?

**TonyO** · February 23rd, 2006, 11:23 AM

Crain's Poll: Would you work in the Freedom Tower?

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/poll.cms

**lofter1** · February 23rd, 2006, 11:41 AM

Less than 500 responses ^^ and pretty much an even 50 / 50 split.

How many potential jobs are projected for the completed F***dom Tower?

**NYatKNIGHT** · February 23rd, 2006, 12:44 PM

That unscientific poll to me suggests that enough people are willing to work in the building even if a lot aren't and that, in time, it will be less and less of an issue. It certainly wasn't 50-50 a couple of years ago.

What it didn't ask; if your employer moved into the Freedom Tower, would you quit your job?

**NoyokA** · February 23rd, 2006, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by NYatKNIGHT

That unscientific poll to me suggests that enough people are willing to work in the building even if a lot aren't and that, in time, it will be less and less of an issue. It certainly wasn't 50-50 a couple of years ago.

What it didn't ask; if your employer moved into the Freedom Tower, would you quit your job?

I most certainly wouldn't. Not everyone is as levelheaded though. The only way the Freedom Tower is going down is if there's another terrorist attack involving airplanes and that's almost certainly not going to happen again.

**Bob** · February 23rd, 2006, 08:01 PM

An airplane attack is most certainly possible from "general aviation." The only way to have 100% security from air attack is to ground all aviation in the U.S.

**Teno** · February 23rd, 2006, 10:42 PM

Seriously doubtful though.

A smaller airplane would not have the same mass, velocity, or carry the large amount of fuel as a wide body transcontinental plane.

From their perspective would only do minimal damage and not really worth all the effort.

**TonyO** · February 23rd, 2006, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by Teno

Seriously doubtful though.

A smaller airplane would not have the same mass, velocity, or carry the large amount of fuel as a wide body transcontinental plane.

From their perspective would only do minimal damage and not really worth all the effort.

And, the Freedom Tower (and any new tall tower) will not be constructed in the same vulnerable way the twin towers were.

And, cockpit doors in older planes are all now retro-reinforced and new planes have nearly impenetrable cockpits.

And, passengers would not sit and watch this type of event happen again.

The chances of a 9/11 event happening again are very slim. Terrorists bent on huge events will think of something new entirely.