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

[CoolCzech]

"The Port Authority says Silverstein has been unwilling to modify his development to reflect the economic downturn."

Damned straight he's been unwilling, and Thank God. Downturns eventually become upturns, and is the PA too ill-educated to remember that the ESB and Rockefeller Center were built right smack in the middle of a Super-sized one?

And come to think of it... did the PA modify their development stance during the still-recent building boom in Manhattan??

Shame, SHAME, Hypocrites.

[NYguy]

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Real+E...9/July/29-p528

Obama's transit boss hints at plan B for WTC.

Real Estate Weekly (July 29)
By Daniel Geiger


The Federal Transit Administrator is "concerned" that the Santiago Calatrava-designed PATH hub at the World Trade Center site will swell further beyond its current $3.2 billion budget.

An impasse between the Port Authority, which controls the site, and Larry Silverstein, the Manhattan developer who owns a leasehold allowing him the right to build office towers there, could push the project behind its current schedule and require portions of it to be redesigned.

Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff, who was appointed to the position by President Barack Obama in May, said that changes to the current design or delays would result in more overruns for the already-costly project.

"My concerns go to the Port and the Silverstein group, the project as currently designed is dependent on taking advantage of the structural walls of Tower 2 and 3, if Tower 2 and 3 don't get built, then we need to go back and direct the Port Authority to redesign the project," Rogoff said. "That would add to cost and time schedule and right now, seeing the negotiations, that calls into question whether we are going to see those two towers built."

The Federal Transit Administration, which Rogoff heads, has granted $2.2 billion in federal money to pay for the station, of which $1 billion has been drawn down so far to begin building.

The FTA has oversight responsibilities for the funds, part of a $4.5 billion federal package both for projects that are part of the rebuilding of the World Trade Center or in the surrounding area.

The WTC Path hub ties into two skyscrapers Silverstein wants to build on the site, Tower 2 and Tower 3. The structure's glass winged oculus, for instance, relies on below-grade anchoring to the foundations of the buildings for support and much of the infrastructure required for the station's operation, such as power and ventilation systems, are housed in the two buildings' lower floors.

But Silverstein has said that he is unable to raise the billions of dollars in private financing necessary to fund the development of the towers because of an economy-wide pullback in lending amid the recession. Speculative office development in a dramatically weakening Manhattan office market appears to be a particularly risky gamble no lenders are willing to take. He and the Port Authority have wrangled over a request he has made for the authority to guarantee the financing for Tower 2, a role that would allow Silverstein to build but that the authority has so-far rebuffed because it would be exposed to the risk of having to saddle considerable debt should Silverstein default.

As of late last week, the two parties appeared to be heading to arbitration, with the Port Authority saying it would hand over the development parcels for Towers 2 and 3 to Silverstein, a turnover that has an aggressive edge because it will trigger the recommencement of nearly $100 million in yearly rent for Silverstein.

Silverstein, according to according to reports and sources familiar with his decision-making, could seek damages in either arbitration or in other court actions he takes against the authority, including the reimbursement of hundreds of millions of dollars in ground rent he has paid at the site.

Among Silverstein's claims are that the Port Authority's delay in handing over the parcels for Towers 2 and 3 caused him to miss the last real estate boom cycle and the abundant financing that was then available.

[Lecom]

Then the government can perhaps help Silverstein pay just for the foundations, to bring both towers to at least street grade, or however much is necessary as a bare minimum to support the PATH station. Sure, the towers still wouldn't really be rising, but at least the move would probably be cheaper than a complete station redesign that would require its own facilities and supports (which, in itself, would be more expensive not just to design, but also to build than sharing those with the other buildings), would set towers 2 and 3 into the "ready to go" mode, and would help avoid soil erosion, water buildup and other stuff you'd rather not see happen in an 80 ft (?) deep bathtub set to hold two supertalls.

[BStyles]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The WTC Path hub ties into two skyscrapers Silverstein wants to build on the site, Tower 2 and Tower 3. The structure's glass winged oculus, for instance, relies on below-grade anchoring to the foundations of the buildings for support and much of the infrastructure required for the station's operation, such as power and ventilation systems, are housed in the two buildings' lower floors.

I really don't think the PA(or the government at best) have any choice. They HAVE to start the towers if they don't want structural/electrical/mechanical problems to the hub, and redesigning it would just run up an even higher, more expensive budget. And I highly doubt the retail stumps planned would be heavy or strong enough to hold the oculus in place.

[Dac150]

Well when you factor in the costs of retrofitting the site to accommodate the new plan they’re speaking of they’d be contradicting their case to save money. It makes all the sense in the world to just carry on as planned, and hopefully this public hearing will make that more clear to those who are opposing Silverstein’s option.

[talltowers08]

jst check earth cam and there is one lonesome digger on the site of tower 2 wonder what that is up to http://www.earthcam.com/clients/grou...groundZero.swf

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Dac150

Well when you factor in the costs of retrofitting the site to accommodate the new plan they’re speaking of they’d be contradicting their case to save money.

Yeah, but at this point for the Port Authority, it's more about sticking it to Silverstein.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by NYguy

Yeah, but at this point for the Port Authority, it's more about sticking it to Silverstein.

Well as obvious as this sounds that’s simply wrong. Hopefully their bitterness and spite will come back to bite them, and I have a feeling that that day is going to be on the horizon soon. The public (who isn’t as educated on these matters, or familiar with them, as we are) is expecting to see what is posted on the fences that surround the site. For them to really get some insight on what the PA is doing should be enough to ignite a riot and spark demand to receive what was promised. I’m really looking forward to see what comes out of these public hearings.

[NYguy]

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200...bled_past.html

PA bets on Perini Civil, a crucial builder with troubled past, to get Ground Zero on track



BY Douglas Feiden
Friday, August 14th 2009


A construction company that built casinos in Las Vegas where nine workers died over a two-year period snared a super-sensitive, $192 million contract Thursday to rebuild Greenwich St. at Ground Zero.

Tutor Perini Corp. - which was slammed for cutting corners to meet aggressive construction timetables - will build the brand new street that will let the public access the 9/11 Memorial by the 10th anniversary of the terror attacks.

The Port Authority says it hired Perini Civil, a division of the industry giant, to fast-track the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site, which is years behind schedule and billions over budget.

It says Perini Civil is completely separate from Perini Building, the division that had the rash of fatalities on three separate Nevada casino projects and was faulted for taking deadly shortcuts and imperiling worker safety.

Peekskill, N.Y.-based Perini Civil has legal problems of its own: The U.S. attorney in Brooklyn is probing the firm for alleged fraud in obtaining contracts that were supposed to go to minority-owned businesses for work on the Williamsburg Bridge and West Side Highway.

"That's old news," said Jack Frost, CEO of Perini Civil, referring to the worker fatalities and the federal investigation, which resulted in indictments of two top Perini executives.

Perini's mission: Build the underground infrastructure below Greenwich St., remove 170,000 cubic yards of soil and rock to a depth of 72 feet and erect the underpinning for the No. 1 subway line, which passes under the new street.

"As the lead builder of public projects at the WTC site, we're constantly looking for ways to build faster and more cost effectively - and this approach is another example of that," said PA Chairman Anthony Coscia.

[NYguy]

http://archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3767

WTC Exceptionalism
Port Authority and Silverstein debate their differences at City Council hearing




8.19.2009

Is the World Trade Center site special, or is it just another piece of Manhattan real estate? That appears to be the major point of contention between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Silverstein Properties, both of whom are still in the middle of a bitter fight over who should finance the two remaining towers at the site.

Both sides made their case today at a special hearing of the City Council, with Christopher Ward, the Port Authority’s executive director, arguing it is not his agency’s place to be building speculative office towers in a down economy that could impact the surrounding market, while Janno Lieber, president of World Trade Center Properties, claimed the authority was reneging on prior commitments to ensure a timely completion of a site unlike any other in the world.

The hearing is part of a larger saga stretching back to the spring, when new concerns began to arise about when the site—including SOM’s One World Trade Center, Michael Arad’s memorial, Snohetta’s museum, Santiago Calatrava’s PATH station, and three commercial towers along Greenwich Street—might be completed or occupied and at what cost. The timing and cost of completing the massive 16-acre project overseen by near-countless agencies had been ballooning since day one, but the collapse of the economy, and particularly the credit markets, added new uncertainty.

Struggling for financing on Norman Foster’s Tower 2 and Richard Roger’s Tower 3, developer Larry Silverstein sought assistance from the Port Authority, which balked for a number of reasons. Mayor Michael Bloomberg called a summit in May, attended by Governor David Paterson and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, one of the state’s most powerful politicians who also represents Lower Manhattan. No agreement could be reached at this or a second summit in June, though Silver and Bloomberg threw their weight behind Silverstein, who threatened to sue. Paterson later stepped in, though on the side of the authority. Two weeks ago, Silverstein conceded slightly, pursuing arbitration, which is expected to take some months.

Today’s hearing may have little impact on what appear to be stalled negotiations, but it did provide some insight into what has been going on behind the scenes.

Ward began by outlining progress at the site. Despite scepticism from Alan Gerson, the local council member holding the hearing, Ward promised that 80 percent of the above ground portion of the memorial would be complete in time for the September 11 tenth anniversary, including the reflecting pools, wall of names, memorial plaza, and many of the trees. The underground portion and the Snohetta museum would still be under construction for another year or two, however, and the entire memorial site would have to be closed at times to make way for site construction. Asked by Gerson if it would be "more open or more closed," Ward insisted on the former.

As for the two unbuilt towers, Ward pointed to the original World Trade Center as a clear example of why the Port Authority should not again be financing a commercial real estate project, as Minoru Yamasaki's Twin Towers sat largely empty for decades, depressing the surrounding market. Ward emphasized that his agency was not opposed to supporting Silverstein’s two towers—“There’s a moral commitment to making sure downtown does not remain a scar,” he said—but that the private sector must make some form of financial commitment as well. “The market must agree that this is the right thing to do.”

Furthermore, Ward argued he had already expended a great deal of resources at the site, upwards of $11 billion committed to the construction of Tower One and Tower Four—designed by Fumihiko Maki and already under construction—the PATH station, the memorial, and acres upon acres of site infrastructure. To spend much more, at least without a commensurate commitment from Silverstein, would be to jeopardize the remainder of the authority’s capital budget.

But in the view of some, including Gerson, Lieber, and Silverstein, the Port Authority had promised to complete the project no matter the economic or extenuating circumstances. “This is about replacing what was,” Gerson said, reminding Ward that for many New Yorkers, the World Trade Center is more than just office towers but also a symbol. (That said, Silverstein made similar commitments to build at all costs when he first promised to rebuild at Ground Zero.)

Lieber echoed Gerson’s argument that the World Trade Center is special and therefore must be completed in a timely manner. “It’s bad for the community,” Lieber said. He also emphasized that his company had contributed billions of dollars in rent to the Port Authority, a significant stake that the developer felt was not being considered when the authority refused to provide financing for the final two towers. “We would lose our equity, we’d be wiped out, and the Port Authority would own the buildings,” Lieber said.

He also said that Silverstein had agreed during the prior negotiations to raising hundreds of millions of dollars so long as its lenders would be paid back first, a deal, according to Lieber, the Port Authority declined. (Ward had already left and could not be reached for comment. The agency’s press office did not return requests for comment.) Lieber said it would likely fall to the arbitration to settle the dispute, and while no arbitrator could force one party to build or invest in a project, it could award monetary damages, which could then help Silverstein finance the remaining towers.

Part of that argument is that the Port Authority has been dragging out its delivery of the sites for those towers, leading to $300,000 daily payments to the developer, an offset on his rent for not having the parcels ready more than a year ago. Ward announced today that the Port Authority would soon be making the transfer, possibly within days, thereby weakening Silverstein’s complaint both in public and at the negotiating table. “At that point, he’s free to build at anytime, as per our 2006 agreement,” Ward said.

A Silverstein spokesperson said after the hearing that, even if the parcels are turned over shortly, what really matters is the infrastructure throughout the vastly interdependent site, which remains behind schedule and continues to create delays. As Lieber put it, “We don’t need to know how much new concrete has been poured, as they keep telling us. We need real milestones, like when these buildings will actually be completed.”

As always, the fate of the World Trade Center remains in question. While two towers are rising, though at uncertain rates and with uncertain tenants, two more remain unbuilt and in the balance. While neither side sees eye to eye, they both look to the future:

“Why aren’t they rising? The reason they’re not rising is there’s neither tenant nor financing," Ward said. "The market is telling us these shouldn’t rise. Building into a market, you’re essentially building socialized office space. It will create problems for years to come.”

“The problem is not that these buildings don't have a future,” Lieber said, referring to Tower 2 and Tower 3. “Why invest three to four billion in a PATH station if downtown’s business center has no future? Same goes for One World Trade Center. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

Matt Chaban

[NYguy]

http://downtownexpress.com/de_330/portsaysclock.html

After negotiations between the parties earlier this summer went nowhere, Silverstein moved related discussions about the site’s timetable into formal arbitration. Silverstein is seeking to recoup all $2.75 billion paid to the Port in rent and insurance proceeds since 9/11, based on the Port’s inability to deliver key infrastructure, such as the PATH hub and vehicle security center, a rebuilding source said two weeks ago. That money would then allow Silverstein to build the towers without the Port’s help.

...Lieber outlined Silverstein’s current offer to the Port Authority, which would allow two of the Church St. towers to rise: Silverstein would put up $75 million in cash and would raise several hundred million dollars privately. Under most circumstances it would be impossible to raise that much money right now, but if Silverstein gave investors first priority on the repayment of the debt, then it would be possible to raise the money, Lieber said.

The problem is that the Port Authority does not want to give private investors that first-priority spot.

[Duffstuff129]

Under most circumstances it would be impossible to raise that much money right now, but if Silverstein gave investors first priority on the repayment of the debt, then it would be possible to raise the money, Lieber said.

[Dac150]

I have and will continue to be confident that both Towers 2 & 3 will come to see the light of day. I’ve always looked at these financial squabbles as scare tactics, and now that he has complete control of the site we shall see how the tide turns.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Dac150

I have and will continue to be confident that both Towers 2 & 3 will come to see the light of day. I’ve always looked at these financial squabbles as scare tactics, and now that he has complete control of the site we shall see how the tide turns.

I think this will be resolved through arbitration, just like the last dispute. Problem is, that will take a few more months...

After negotiations between the parties earlier this summer went nowhere, Silverstein moved related discussions about the site’s timetable into formal arbitration. Silverstein is seeking to recoup all $2.75 billion paid to the Port in rent and insurance proceeds since 9/11, based on the Port’s inability to deliver key infrastructure, such as the PATH hub and vehicle security center, a rebuilding source said two weeks ago. That money would then allow Silverstein to build the towers without the Port’s help.

[uaarkson]

Stomp some ass Larry

[BStyles]

I'll second that. If it was me, I'd raise hell too to get back my money. Paying 2.75 billion in rent when there is no WTC to get it from, that's just ridiculous. The PA is completely screwed if that statement comes up.

If SOME PEOPLE are willing to wait a few months and Silverstein gets back his money, then this thread will be very interesting.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BStyles

If SOME PEOPLE are willing to wait a few months and Silverstein gets back his money, then this thread will be very interesting.

It's already interesting to the people who bother to read it.

Part of that argument is that the Port Authority has been dragging out its delivery of the sites for those towers, leading to $300,000 daily payments to the developer, an offset on his rent for not having the parcels ready more than a year ago.

Those payments weren't meant as an offset of the rent, but rather a penalty the PA was forced to pay Silverstein for delays. The PA wouldn't be able to use that argument, though it is the base of Silverstein's.

[NYguy]

Silverstein Properties testimony before the hearing...
http://www.wtc.com/news/john-n-janno...ncil-testimony

Testimony of John N. "Janno" Lieber
President, World Trade Center Properties

August 19, 2009

Good afternoon Chairman Gerson and Council Members. Thank you for this opportunity to address some important issues, as well as to dispel some misinformation, relating to the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site.

We are here today because eight years after terrorists destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11, the rebuilding effort is in jeopardy because of chronic and repeated delays by the site's owner - the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey.

After 9/11, all the government and private stakeholders agreed that it was urgent - for lower Manhattan, for the City, and for the nation - to rebuild the World Trade Center quickly. We came together and pledged to make it a model in every way with groundbreaking life safety features, world-class architecture and state-of-the-art environmental standards.

We selected a Master Plan - designed by Daniel Libeskind - that called not only for recreating the retail and office space destroyed in the attacks, but also for a Memorial to the victims of the attacks, a new above-ground mass transit hub, and a Performing Arts Center to bring culture to the site of tragedy. The Master Plan also sought to undo the negatives of the original super-block design by restoring historic New York streets - Greenwich and Fulton - and reconnecting the site to the Manhattan street grid.

At Silverstein Properties, we disproved the many naysayers who predicted Downtown's permanent demise by building, financing and leasing 7 World Trade Center in record time. But at the 16-acre WTC site, we agreed to build five office buildings rather than just two - like the Twin Towers - despite the huge additional costs to my company. And without compensation, we gave up more than half of the land at the WTC site for the Memorial and other public projects - even though that meant we had to wait years for new building sites to be created and excavated on the eastern area of the site, away from the location of the Twin Towers. But it was the right thing to do, because the World Trade Center was - and is - a special project. It is central to the success and future of this neighborhood. It is critical to the recovery of New York City's economy and employment base.

Obviously, we weren't the only ones who recognized that the World Trade Center was unique and warranted some special treatment. The Federal government provided significant funds to rebuild the PATH station and other transportation infrastructure. Congress also put in place tax-exempt financing to make sure the commercial space could be rebuilt - without waiting to satisfy conventional market economics. With Speaker Silver's leadership, the legislature enacted a "Marshall Plan" to speed up the physical and economic reconstruction of the Downtown business district and to help rebuilding. The State leadership stepped in to resolve our longstanding battles with insurance companies, who were holding back resources necessary for rebuilding. Under Mayor Bloomberg's leadership, the City helped trigger a retail and residential boom that transformed Downtown into a model mixed-use neighborhood. Chairman Gerson, you and your committee have always been a strong advocate for the fully rebuilt World Trade Center that our community demands.

So - as you can sense - I find it deeply troubling that the Port Authority all of a sudden insists that the World Trade Center - or at least the office buildings - be viewed as a conventional real estate project that needs to wait until the "market" makes it possible to obtain conventional financing. Which in the Port's view of the New York real estate market, means waiting until 2037 - a full generation after the attacks of 9/11. That makes no sense for New York, and we won't agree to it - especially since top elected leaders have offered a pragmatic plan that would complete virtually the entire site by 2014-15.

The World Trade Center is not a conventional real estate project. No other site struggles with the burden of having been attacked twice by terrorists. No other office building projects have been made to be so totally dependent on public sector construction projects. No other site has a cost structure increased by cutting-edge environmental, architectural and safety standards totally beyond code. No other site has the potential to create 10,000 union construction jobs when people in that industry - mainstays of New York's middle class - are struggling with a dramatic drop-off of work. No other project can cement Downtown's place as an economic and jobs powerhouse for the Region by providing the only new, green office space being built in New York City.

And, perhaps most significant, no other site has such a huge land cost. As you know, after 9/11 Silverstein kept paying the Port Authority the same rent as if the Twin Towers were still standing and full of tenants paying us rent every month. All told, since 2001, we have paid the Port Authority $2.75 billion for the right to rebuild 6.2 million square feet. of office space. That is maybe five or six times the market value of those development rights. This tremendous windfall to the Port Authority has eaten up roughly two-thirds of all the insurance we collected from our insurance carriers. So its amazing that the Port has decided to hide behind rhetoric about "market" economics and market discipline.

In 2005 and 2006, the Port Authority - together with the other government stakeholders - forcefully insisted that it was important that the entire WTC be fully rebuilt in one single coordinated effort rather than let the site, and the neighborhood, stagnate any longer. This argument was used by the Port to justify taking back several of our buildings, on the theory that the Port, with its vast economic resources, could get them done quickly and cheaply. The most public debate about that issue took place in a hearing of this very committee.

We signed a legal agreement in 2006 and gave back to the Port the right to build 1 WTC and 5 WTC, totaling 3.8 million square feet. We were asked to design and construct three buildings in a few short years, because the government leaders felt it was important for Downtown. We accepted the challenge, and made good on our side of the deal, completing designs on time over a year ago.

The Port, in turn, committed to give Silverstein Properties construction-ready sites, so we could start to build those three towers. Separately, and in addition, the Port also agreed to complete critical infrastructure - the PATH Transportation Hub, the Vehicle Security Center and underground roadway, Greenwich Street and utilities - so that we could finish and open the new Trade Center according to that schedule.

Of course that's not how it turned out. One year ago, after years of the Port Authority insisting that everything was going just fine, Chris Ward admitted the truth - that every project for which the Port is responsible had fallen years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, threatening the entire WTC rebuilding effort.

Around that time, the leaders of the Port Authority gave us their personal assurances that the agency would work in good faith with us to quickly craft a new rebuilding agreement - one that reflects the true cost and impact of the Port's failures, yet still would allow for a prompt rebuilding. They understood that the $2.75 billion we have paid the Port since 2001 wasn't conventional market "rent" in any sense. That's money that is no longer available for rebuilding.

In addition to getting billions of dollars from our rebuilding coffers, the Port Authority has collected more than a billion dollars from its own insurance policies and received over $2 billion from the federal government, plus hundreds of millions from the 9/11 Memorial Foundation.

So it is frustrating to watch the Port Authority, after collecting over $6 billion from outside sources, take to the airwaves to claim extreme poverty as an excuse not to lift a finger to rectify its own mistakes at the World Trade Center.

The Port Authority insists that it hasn't made any mistakes, that everything is on schedule and that nothing is delayed. These Orwellian denials further undermine the little credibility the Port has left as it relates to the World Trade center site. Less than a year ago, Chris Ward stood before Governor Paterson and New Yorkers and delivered what he described as an accurate, realistic schedule for the project. Now, less than a year later, despite the Port's quarterly pronouncements that they are on schedule, the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center conducted an independent study that shows that the Port will not likely finish critical WTC work until years past its own deadlines. Freedom Tower - January 2018, WTC PATH Hub - September 2018, 9/11 Memorial & Museum - May 2013, Vehicle Security Center - August 2014.

Where does that leave the office buildings at the Trade Center? Since January, we have built Tower 4 from its foundations 80 feet below grade up to street level. Although we are on schedule to finish the building in 2012, we don't know if the Port will be able to deliver the critical infrastructure necessary to finish, open and operate the building.

The Port Authority owns the World Trade Center site and is responsible for its redevelopment. It has been almost eight years since New York City's historic downtown was attacked by terrorists and the Port has an obligation to the entire nation to do everything possible to ensure the entire site is rebuilt. Now, not 30 years from now. As the Mayor and the Speaker have pointed out, the Port should make rebuilding the WTC a priority rather than invoking false choices between projects as an excuse for it failure in this once-in-a-lifetime rebuilding.

Chairman Gerson and Council Members, we at Silverstein Properties remain absolutely determined to see the World Trade Center fully rebuilt as the centerpiece of the new world-class mixed-use community that is emerging Downtown - the greenest and most exciting place to work, live, shop and visit in our wonderful City. Thank you for your continued efforts to help realize that shared vision. I would be happy to take any of your questions

[Lecom]

after 9/11 Silverstein kept paying the Port Authority the same rent as if the Twin Towers were still standing and full of tenants paying us rent every month.

The Port didn't even give them any sort of a discount due to the circumstances? What assholes.

[CoolCzech]

The 8 anniversary of 9/11 is almost upon us and THIS is what we have to show for the years that have gone by. A 10 year old kid back then is an 18 year old college student now. And all they've known of the World Trade Center all of their formative years was this pathetic hole in the ground that just refuses to go away.

It's just a deep, deep, humiliating shame for New York, and a testament to the need to disband the PA.