I can't stand Libeskind. You can preety much tell that this guy does not really care of the importance of this site. He just cares about getting more and more money for a desighn that has been changed so much by childs that all i see from Libeskind is the spiral yet, i don't hear Childs sueing
Silverstein. We should had gotten an American archetect like childs because it seems that such archetects like Libeskind from another nation does not feel how important this is. Thankfully childs does know how important it is and he is doing as much as possible to make this desighn the best he has made wile Libeskind is suing and asking for more money instead of working on the project.I can't stand that guy. :x
I want that tower 50 percent larger....dammit!At one point, Silverstein showed a plan to New York Governor George Pataki "that was slyly contrived to hide their plan to make the tower 50 percent larger than originally proposed,'' according to the complaint.
Is it still possible to change the plan so radically?Originally Posted by Stern
Patrick
Lets hope so. Maybe this lawsuit will result in Libeskind being banished once and for all. Maybe then he can write another book, this time about Silverstein's "corruption".
As evidenced by his current lawsuit, this is what Libeskind thinks of the Freedom Tower, and the changes from his design:
Libeskind hasn't really been pushing for more office space...The suit in Manhattan Supreme Court charges that Silverstein "paid lip service" to the master plan chosen by Gov. Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg more than a year ago in order to squeeze more office space into the tower and boost his profit.
There is a limit to how much Silverstein can build on site. However, it wouldn't be surprising for Silverstein to try to put as much space as he can get by with in the towers he actually gets off the ground.Libeskind claims Silverstein favored commercial development far beyond the scale his master plan envisioned. The architect alleges Silverstein is now punishing him for his protests by witholding design fees.
50% larger than originally proposed? How could they hide that? But Libeskind apparently believed it enough (remember the "photo crashing") to get photos of the design. That did get Pataki's attention, and resulted in a reduced height. But at the time, Pataki's design deadline was an issue. Now with no urgency involved, maybe Pataki was able to get a more detailed presentation of why the tower must accomodate more height.At one point, Silverstein showed a plan to New York Governor George Pataki "that was slyly contrived to hide their plan to make the tower 50 percent larger than originally proposed,'' according to the complaint.
We'll wait and see.
NY Observer...
Less Than Zero: The Libeskinds Sue Silverstein
by Blair Golson
A mere 10 days after Governor George Pataki presided over an optimistic and buoyant ceremony to lay the cornerstone of the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center, Ground Zero master planner architect Daniel Libeskind filed suit against Larry Silverstein, the developer who is building the 1,776-foot-tall spire.
The lawsuit arises out of a billing dispute between the architect and the developer that has grown into a bitter feud and hit an impasse, both sides say, and construction on the symbolism-strewn tower will now play out against yet another courtroom feud.
In court papers filed July 13, Mr. Libeskind claimed that Mr. Silverstein owes his firm $843,750 for the architectural work it performed on the Freedom Tower between July and December of 2003. Mr. Silverstein allegedly last offered around $225,000 for the work, a figure that Mr. Libeskind has called "insulting," and which he has said is in retaliation for the way his vision for the skyscraper clashed with that of Mr. Silverstein’s architect on the project, David Childs, of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill.
"It has always been our desire to avoid a senseless courtroom fight. That being said, we fully expect to prevail," Mr. Silverstein said through a spokesman.
The filing of this lawsuit marks the low point in the often tempestuous relationship between the 58-year-old Mr. Libeskind and the 73-year-old Mr. Silverstein. Although the dispute has been simmering for months, the fact that it has escalated into a full-blown lawsuit reveals how much animosity there now exists between the two men.
That rancor, and the impending legal showdown it has provoked, also represents something of an embarrassment for Mr. Pataki and Kevin Rampe, the president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. The two men are fond of invoking lofty, idealistic rhetoric when describing the moral imperative of digging Ground Zero out from under the ashes, and of lauding the felicitous cooperation that resulted in the largely symbolic laying of the cornerstone of the Freedom Tower on July 4.
Instead of idealism, the Governor and Mr. Rampe now find themselves, once again, knee-deep in a morass of finger-pointing and name-calling between the two largest private-sector stakeholders of the World Trade Center. But whereas the last dispute between Mr. Libeskind and Mr. Silverstein—over the design of the Freedom Tower—could at least be chalked up to a disagreement over aesthetics, this current dispute is about nothing more lofty than money. In that sense, however, it seems strikingly apt, rooted as it is in what promises to be the tallest monument to commerce ever constructed by man.
"We are surprised that Studio Daniel Libeskind has filed a lawsuit at this time," Mr. Silverstein said through his spokesman. "It was our understanding that just a few days ago the Libeskinds accepted our repeated suggestion of mediation by some neutral third party and that they were in fact considering a list of potential mediators."
Mr. Libeskind’s lawyer, Ed Hayes, responded that he is not aware of any list of potential mediators, while simultaneously rejecting the idea of meditation out of hand. "We would never accept mediation with Mr. Silverstein because it’s not public, it’s not under oath and it’s not binding."
The lawsuit against Mr. Silverstein comes at a time when the developer is already embroiled in a separate legal battle with the World Trade Center’s insurers. Mr. Silverstein had sought a $7 billion payout, but recent court losses have cut his available rebuilding money down to between $3.5 and $4.6 billion, raising questions about how many new buildings he will be able to finance on the site, and whether or not other developers may have to step in. Mr. Silverstein has long insisted that he will at least have enough insurance money to build the estimated $1.6 billion Freedom Tower, but he softened that stance recently by admitting that he would likely be dependent on government-subsidized Liberty Bonds to help build even the first tower.
Stuck With Each Other
In his lawsuit, Mr. Libeskind has not asked for an injunction that would halt the just-begun construction on the tower, so it is unlikely that the legal action will slow the building’s ascent.
What remains to be seen, however, is what ramifications the suit, regardless of its outcome, will have on the downtown rebuilding process in the years to come. Unless one party walks away or is removed from the site, the two men will have to continue working together to ensure that Mr. Silverstein’s commercial plans for the site fit within the master plan that Mr. Libeskind created for it. That includes perhaps as many as four more skyscrapers, for starters, in addition to a dizzying network of underground infrastructure and myriad aboveground programmatic elements, many of which have yet to be imagined. Given the bitterness evident in the Libeskinds’ public statements about Mr. Silverstein, it’s hard to imagine much synergy on the site in the short term.
The lawyer who brought this suit on behalf of the Libeskinds is Eddie Hayes, the 56-year-old scrappy pugilist on whom Tom Wolfe based the character of the defense lawyer in The Bonfire of the Vanities. Mr. Hayes made headlines in early 2002 for extracting $100 million out of a 9/11 victim’s-families fund controlled by then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
One downtown watcher active in the business community called the lawsuit an "opportunistic sideshow" that has far more to do with Mr. Hayes than it does with Mr. Silverstein.
"He’s been looking for an angle to make headlines since he settled the issue with Giuliani," the business leader said on the condition of anonymity. "It’s the kind of opportunistic play that unfortunately some people are tempted to take advantage of in the downtown situation …. No developer pays their architect on time. I knew when Libeskind hired [Mr. Hayes] that this was going to happen."
Mr. Hayes, for his part, defended his actions in the Giuliani case, and charged that Mr. Silverstein will only respond to a lawsuit.
"Giuliani would not transfer the money to the families of the rescuers who died until we threatened litigation," he said, "and Silverstein can’t use as an excuse that he never pays anybody [on time] to not pay the people who work for him."
The billing dispute has its origins in the July 2003 compromise that made Mr. Silverstein’s architect, Mr. Childs, the lead designer of the Freedom Tower, and relegated Mr. Libeskind to the status of second-string "collaborating" architect. (As the master planner of the site, Mr. Libeskind makes large-scale decisions about things like the location and relative size of the skyscrapers, the memorial and the cultural buildings, but Mr. Silverstein, who holds a 99-year lease of the site from the Port Authority, gets to make decisions about architects for individual elements of the site.) In the months that followed that compromise, members of each camp fed the media with systematic leaks and counter-leaks that painted the other side’s architect as a prima donna, and unwilling to compromise.
Nevertheless, in December the LMDC did announce a compromise vision for what would become the signature element of the World Trade Center. The mammoth building would torque as it rises to around 1,500 feet, at which point a cable-enclosed set of windmills tops out the tower at 1,776 feet. Although the skyscraper will retain the spire that was a main feature of Mr. Libeskind’s original design for the building, the master planner distanced himself from the "finished" product, insisting that the building’s design was mostly Mr. Childs’, and that it only barely fit within his master plan.
At that point, the battle behind him, it came time for Mr. Libeskind to submit his firm’s bill. As he outlined in his lawsuit, the July 2003 power-sharing compromise did not address payment issues, but Mr. Libeskind assumed he would be paid based on a percentage of the project’s total costs, as is par for the industry. As a result, neither he nor his staff members kept formal time sheets to mark the time they spent working on the Freedom Tower.
"[Our firm] has never billed for a private client on an hourly basis," Ms. Libeskind wrote in an affidavit supporting the lawsuit. "[Mr. Silverstein’s firm] knew this because it previously offered to hire [us] as consultants on this project on a percentage basis."
By Mr. Libeskind’s calculations, his firm is owed $843,750. But, Ms. Libeskind said, Mr. Silverstein countered with a much lower number, somewhere around $125,000; he later rose to $225,000. Mr. Silverstein has declined to comment on the specifics of the negotiations.
"Daniel Libeskind has already been paid many millions of dollars for his work by the LMDC and the Port Authority and is unable to provide any industry-standard time sheets or other documentation that would justify an additional payment of more than $800,000," said Mr. Silverstein’s spokesman.
In a May 7 letter to Mr. Silverstein, Mr. Libeskind’s wife and business partner, Nina, charged that the developer’s refusal to compensate the Libes-kinds was a reprisal for their attempts to shrink and alter the building to fit into their master plan.
"One can only assume that the almost insulting amount offered by you for our conceptual and design effort is in retaliation for our refusal to accept a building which was grossly out of scale and not in compliance with the master plan," Ms. Libeskind wrote in the letter, which The Observer first disclosed on June 2.
Recently, as it became obvious that both sides were still several hundred thousands of dollars apart, both Mr. Rampe of the LMDC and members of the Governor’s office tried to mediate the issue.
"Kevin Rampe strove mightily to solve this problem," Mr. Hayes said. "But it didn’t work."
Larry Silverstein
Copyright 2003-2004 The Real Deal.
Hmm..Well Libeskind didn't listen to me so now he aint getting no more $$$...
(Sorry... Is krulltime words but I am pretty sure that is what Silverstein is thinking right now)
I am pretty sure that Nina is the ONE that had a bigger influence on Libeskind to shrink and alter the building to fit into the master plan. She sounds really pist-off. :twisted:In a May 7 letter to Mr. Silverstein, Mr. Libeskind’s wife and business partner, Nina, charged that the developer’s refusal to compensate the Libes-kinds was a reprisal for their attempts to shrink and alter the building to fit into their master plan.
I hope they take Libeskind out of this project. He has been a real pain for the rebuilding process. Demanding, Demanding, Demanding. He just gotta shut up and let this project move on with no more money poblems. Is not like the present building desighn is completely his idea. Only the spiral.
The rest is childs doing. Libeskind got his money for what he did so Shut up Libeskind and stop demanding more :x
First of all, regarding "shrinkage," Silverstein was NEVER going to have a building occupied above 70 stories. The rest would have been more lattice and windmills, as per one of the models shown at the skyscraper museum.
That said, I think Libeskind is completely justified in his suit.
1. This is government owned land, and government bonds will inevitably be used for construction.
2. The representatives of government chose Libeskind to be the architect (contentious though the process admittedly was)
3. Silverstein said, "screw You, I'm choosing my own architect"
4. So "screw you" Larry, pay Libeskind.
The man speaks the truth.
It's a clash of ego.
Wasn't Libey chosen for the overall site master plan? Does this specifically include skyscrapers when he has no prior experience. Also, at the end of the day, Silverstein is on the hook for millions per year in rent to the PA, so he should be able to do what's best.
Legally, the whole WTC process did not have to happen. It could have been all Silverstein and PA.
There are better ways of arriving at a cost estimate than reading the newspaper.Beginning with the estimated Freedom Tower project cost of $1.5 billion (as reported in newspapers, Ms. Libeskind said, although the project "still has no fixed budget")
Silverstein's entire original equity investment (about $125MM) was quitely returned by the Port Authority. It is no longer his money that he is playing with, but the banks'. So to anyone who talks about how Silverstein is on the hook, you have to remember that Silverstein gets all of the upside if the new WTC is a goldmine, and none of the downside if it fails commercially. Let him sweat!
I don't know where you have been for the past year or so, but Childs originally designed a tower that rose to 2,000 ft (sometimes more depending on antenna design). It was what started the battle between Libeskind and Childs to begin with. Its the size of the tower that Libeskind thought overwhelmed his site plan - NOT the number of floors, although Libeskind also complained of too much office space.
What does that have to do with Libeskind, who was already paid for his services?
Wrong again. Libeskind's SITE PLAN was chosen. And even that was a singlehanded pick by Pataki himself.
Silverstein didn't say "scrw you, Im choosing my own architec" - David Childs was Silverstein's architect of choice LONG before the site plan competition began. And he didn't "hire" Libeskind - the LMDC did, and they paid him for his services. It was Libeskind himself that insisted he work with Silverstein. So, for that reason alone, he should get NOTHING - even if it is a relatively small amount he would be getting. Get this clown out of the picture already so we can get about the serious business of rebuilding, minus the sideshow.
I have no sympathy for Libeskind. His ego has been in the way since Day 1. Pataki hand picked him, he has no mandate or overwhelming support from the public. He is directly responsible for the FT being scaled down. That is unforgivable and the sooner he is shown the door the better in my opinion. Thankfully his memorial 'pit' was axed.The man speaks the truth.
It's a clash of ego.
Silverstein owns the lease and has survived the rebuilding "process" still in charge. Seeing as Libeskind at the most "collaborated" on the FT design, he is beyond arrogant to be insist on being paid in full as if he designed it alone. Especially after receiving millions already.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks