NEW YORK | 175 Greenwich St. | 1,079 FT | 80 FLOORS - Page 177

FMIII · #**3521** Posted **Feb 18, 2014, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Boston

Damn, that looks like some giant dinosaur fossil, very cool.

That is exactly what I thought when I saw the picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

noons14

NYguy · #**3522** Posted **Feb 20, 2014, 12:36 AM**

http://www.rew-online.com/2014/02/19...-global-stage/

Downtown champ Silverstein helps city shine on global stage

February 19, 2014
By Steven Spinola, president, REBNY

Quote:

.....SPI was also able to land its first tenant for 3 World Trade Center, Group M, in time for Christmas last year.

The media investment management giant’s 20-year lease for over half a million square feet will allow SPI to complete the 80-story, 1,200+ foot retail and office building designed by Richard Rogers.

Between the four buildings now completed or under construction on the site, five million square feet of office space has been leased already.
Slightly north of their World Trade Center work, SPI recently began construction on 30 Park Place. Slated for a mid-2016 opening, the 82-story, 926 foot hotel and condominium tower will feature the Four Seasons Downtown, a 189-key addition to the Four Seasons’ 57th Street flagship.

Zapatan · #**3523** Posted **Feb 20, 2014, 4:36 AM**

I don't know if the article is wrong or if it really is back at 1200+ feet.

But good news anyway I guess... the WTC really needs 2 more towers.

chris08876 · #**3524** Posted **Feb 20, 2014, 6:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I don't know if the article is wrong or if it really is back at 1200+ feet.

But good news anyway I guess... the WTC really needs 2 more towers.

Could be that they rounded the height to the nearest 100th or to make the article catchy to read. "Draw the reader in" is something they teach in English 101. 1200+ sounds way better than 1,170. I doubt the specs changed.

NYguy · #**3525** Posted **Feb 20, 2014, 12:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Could be that they rounded the height to the nearest 100th or to make the article catchy to read. "Draw the reader in" is something they teach in English 101. 1200+ sounds way better than 1,170. I doubt the specs changed.

There's no distinction between 1170 and 1200+, particularly to the audience. It certainly wasn't to draw in the reader. It's probably just a reference to the original height of a few years ago, confusion with tower 2, or simply information from Silverstein, whom he's "honored to call a friend." I wouldn't worry too much about it, or read too much into it.

NYguy · #**3526** Posted **Feb 20, 2014, 9:40 PM**

http://silversteinproperties.com/off...-trade-center/

Zapatan · #**3527** Posted **Feb 20, 2014, 11:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

There's no distinction between 1170 and 1200+, particularly to the audience. It certainly wasn't to draw in the reader. It's probably just a reference to the original height of a few years ago, confusion with tower 2, or simply information from Silverstein, whom he's "honored to call a friend." I wouldn't worry too much about it, or read too much into it.

I never trust articles and height figures... they're probably wrong half the time.

Nites · #**3528** Posted **Feb 27, 2014, 9:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMIII

That is exactly what I thought when I saw the picture.

Looks like a Megazord that is about to transform

NYguy · #**3529** Posted **Mar 6, 2014, 11:52 PM**

http://www.faceoff.com/Fitch+Maintai...504/story.html

Fitch to Maintain Neg Watch on 'AAA/F1+' Ratings on $1.2B NY Liberty Dev Corp,
2011A (3 WTC Proj)

Quote:

On the effective date of March 19, 2014, Fitch Ratings will maintain the Negative Watch on the long- and short-term 'AAA/F1+' ratings currently assigned to the $1,214,855,000 New York Liberty Development Corporation (Issuer) multi-modal liberty revenue refunding bonds, series 2011A (3 World Trade Center Project) (2011A bonds).

...Proceeds of the 2011A bonds will be used for costs of construction of Tower 3 at the World Trade Center site in New York, New York. The 2011A bonds are expected to be available for delivery on or about March 19, 2014.

Enigmatism415 · #**3530** Posted **Mar 8, 2014, 11:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

http://www.faceoff.com/Fitch+Maintai...504/story.html

Fitch to Maintain Neg Watch on 'AAA/F1+' Ratings on $1.2B NY Liberty Dev Corp,
2011A (3 WTC Proj)

Bonds... 2011A Bonds...

I guess this sounds like good news.

Zapatan · #**3531** Posted **Mar 9, 2014, 3:44 AM**

AMAZING rendering of the two on Dbox... It's obviously the new 3WTC since it doesn't have the X bracing but it looks to be the old height in comparison with tower 2... one can only hope :/

chris08876 · #**3532** Posted **Mar 9, 2014, 12:33 PM**

Such a tease.

Can't wait to watch this one rise.

NYguy · #**3533** Posted **Mar 9, 2014, 1:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

AMAZING rendering of the two on Dbox... It's obviously the new 3WTC since it doesn't have the X bracing but it looks to be the old height in comparison with tower 2...
one can only hope :/

Yeah, that's the rendering from the video clip that came out a few years ago. One thing you can say about dbox, they do some amazing renders.

Here's another they did over the site...

Perklol · #**3534** Posted **Mar 9, 2014, 7:08 PM**

They need to add 22 Thames, 30 Park, and hopefully the next supertall 45-55 Broad.

JayPro · #**3535** Posted **Mar 9, 2014, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

http://www.faceoff.com/Fitch+Maintai...504/story.html

Fitch to Maintain Neg Watch on 'AAA/F1+' Ratings on $1.2B NY Liberty Dev Corp,
2011A (3 WTC Proj)

This, as I read this, seems to be the only time I've seen the word "negative" used in a diametrically opposite context, i.e. seemingly good tidings for 150G's above-grade status.

As someone with sub-zero knowledge of the subject of this piece, I'd appreciate an exaplanation what it means....other than "the cash needed to build upward is ready to be used." I mean the "negative ratings watch" calptrap.

Submariner · #**3536** Posted **Mar 9, 2014, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayPro

This, as I read this, seems to be the only time I've seen the word "negative" used in a diametrically opposite context, i.e. seemingly good tidings for 150G's above-grade status.

As someone with sub-zero knowledge of the subject of this piece, I'd appreciate an exaplanation what it means....other than "the cash needed to build upward is ready to be used." I mean the "negative ratings watch" calptrap.

To oversimplify it, a negative watch means that the ratings agency is considering lowering their rating of this debt or in layman's terms, saying that there is a slightly higher risk of default associated with these bonds. The consequence is now these bonds have to pay a slightly higher premium to bondholders. That being said, these are still high quality (very low risk of default) bond's. Now the borrowers cost has gone up ever so slightly.