HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

    

Three World Trade Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • New York Skyscraper Diagram
New York Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #801  
Old Posted May 25, 2009, 12:12 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 27,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by djvandrake View Post
How much is Bloomberg worth these days? $4 billion? $6 Billion?

He would be the hero in all of this if he'd tell the Port Authority "You step up for tower 2, and I'll handle tower 3" Not a small sum mind you but one he could handle with his fortune. What else is he going to do with it? Really? Problem solved and gets New Yorkers back to work. NOW.
Bloomberg is running for mayor, and has been a big friend to real estate developers. Something like that would make him instant enemies with the rest of the developers in town who have to compete against the WTC towers. The don't see the rebuilding as a response to 9/11 and restoring the site. They simply see it in terms of how it will affect their own bottom line.
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #802  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 12:31 AM
CoolCzech's Avatar
CoolCzech CoolCzech is offline
Frigidus Maximus
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post
The don't see the rebuilding as a response to 9/11 and restoring the site. They simply see it in terms of how it will affect their own bottom line.
... something that instantly disqualifies them from any say in the WTC project whatsoever, in a sane world...
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/2acxb5t


For the First Time in My Life, I'm Proud of Wisconsin!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #803  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 1:39 AM
Indescribable's Avatar
Indescribable Indescribable is offline
20 Stories Tall
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 414
Interesting sig, CC.
__________________
Have you heard?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #804  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 12:10 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 27,644
If nothing else, we ge an english lesson...
http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2009...eet-again.html

Quote:



Ward has said that backing financing for Silverstein’s office towers before demand for office space downtown resurges would destabilize the market. He said he doubted the June 11 meeting will yield a “fully baked deal.”

“I think the hope is, given the complexity of this, that we’ll have a framework of an agreement that all of the parties will have agreed to,” he said.

Asked what he believed a compromise at the site could mean, Silverstein would say only, “Compromise is a word in the English dictionary, and it’s very important.”
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #805  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 7:59 PM
rich_200's Avatar
rich_200 rich_200 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 4,451
"Ward has said that backing financing for Silverstein’s office towers before demand for office space downtown resurges would destabilize the market."

Someone needs to make him understand that the towers won't be finished tomorrow!!! this guy is annoyingly short sighted
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #806  
Old Posted May 26, 2009, 9:23 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 27,644
^ Understand that even if demand for office space was scorching hot right now, this guy would find another reason to stand by his position. It's all about excuses not to do as opposed to finding ways to do.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/05262009...now_170981.htm

BUILD 'EM NOW
NYC NEEDS MODERN OFFICES



Future stock: Ground Zero Towers 2, 3 and 4 would replenish the city's aging office space. Bloomberg



May 26, 2009


THE city's Economic Development Corp. is crowing over a magazine report that named New York this year's "North American City of the Future."

Published by the Financial Times, fDi magazine, whose initials stand for "foreign-direct investment," cited Gotham's "large number of FDI projects into and out of the city and the number of megaprojects associated with the city."

But we'll look more like Ralph Kramden's "Chef of the Future" on "The Honeymooners" -- that's to say, a laughingstock -- if the big guns bickering over the World Trade Center site don't face up to the crisis that threatens New York's status in the not-so-long run: We need to replenish our aging office-building inventory.

It's obsolescent for many companies and utterly useless for the kinds of firms that generate the tax revenues to support New York's astronomical labor, service and infrastructure needs -- meaning Wall Street and associated industries, such as law and accounting.

The city simply must have all or most of the WTC's planned 10 million square feet of office space if it's to retain its global economic dominance -- or even to stay competitive.

CB Richard Ellis tri-state CEO Mary Ann Tighe sounded the alarm last year, pointing out that by 2010 an astonishing 64 percent of Manhattan's office buildings will be at least 50 years old, compared with the US average of 24 percent. This is heresy to those who buy into the baloney churned out by those plotting to kill office construction at Ground Zero.

The obstructionists include the Port Authority, which is battling developer Larry Silverstein over financing, and the Daily News, whose owner, Mort Zuckerman, is hopelessly conflicted as the chairman of real-estate giant Boston Properties. He recently pulled the plug on two Manhattan commercial projects, and he's loath to see anyone else build -- especially Silverstein, who whipped him in a fierce bidding war for the WTC leasehold in 2001.


They also include commercial real-estate brokers who fear that new construction will make it harder for them to lease space in existing buildings whose landlords they represent and that a "glut" will cause rents to fall.

Right now, there's anything but a glut. Even with the financial contraction under way, Downtown's vacancy rate is the lowest of any large business district in America, according to Cushman and Wakefield.

In all of Manhattan, exactly one large office project is going up: 11 Times Square, at Eighth Avenue and 42nd Street. It will add a scant 1.1 million square feet of office space to Manhattan's total of 361 million square feet when it opens next year. No tenants have signed on yet -- hardly surprising in an uncertain economy. But it's cited by some as reason to justify killing or stalling Ground Zero towers that are years from completion.

How's that for confidence in the "City of the Future"?

If Mayor Bloomberg isn't able to coax the two sides to make a deal and Ground Zero's Towers 2 and 3 are scuttled, the site could end up with less than half of what's planned.

Creating sophisticated office towers should be a local civic priority ranking with keeping crime down and improving public schools.

Why? Because the largest, globally oriented companies want and need the newest product. That's why Goldman Sachs is building a whole new headquarters in Battery Park City.

Buildings erected even as recently as in the late 1990s don't have such essentials as more efficient, column-free floor space, 14-foot "slab-to-slab" floor heights necessary to install modern fiber optics, and "green" features that lower energy costs and provide employees with a safer, more comfortable work environment.

Because there's been so little construction in recent years, Manhattan has precious few large towers that meet today's standards
-- among them, the Durst Organization/Bank of America's One Bryant Park, Silverstein's 7 WTC and The New York Times' headquarters.

Their rare qualities explain why all the available space at One Bryant Park and the Times building was leased swiftly at the highest rents in town and why most of 7 WTC was taken despite having downtown's highest rents.

But what about the downturn? Shouldn't we take it into consideration?

Only to a point. If they could be built overnight, the four Ground Zero towers would add a scant 3 percent to today's total Manhattan office market. The percentage would be even smaller by the time they're actually finished, thanks to inevitable conversion of some older commercial properties to apartments or other uses.

All of this means the current talks between the PA and Silverstein must lead to one outcome only: a guarantee that New York gets the office buildings worthy of, and indispensible to, the "City of the Future."
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #807  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2009, 7:23 PM
Dac150's Avatar
Dac150 Dac150 is offline
World Machine
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NY/CT
Posts: 6,386
You know I was thinking about this and thought why not throw it out there; what about Morgan Stanley? They were looking to partner and get some new space over at the railyards, they're unable to gain full occupancy control of 1585 Broadway, it would make sense. Not to mention they would be in the company of BNY Mellon, Scotia Bank, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Amex, among many other which are all in close proximity.

I'm not sure what their current lease agreement is with 1585 (or if they even own the building), but if they were looking for new space then (pending conditions from the financial crisis) would they still not be looking or at a minimum looking for future options?
__________________
New York, New York- A city so nice they named it twice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #808  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2009, 10:28 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 27,644
There are a lot of companies that will have to either resign leases, or look for space elsewhere. But with lease prieces dropping, they are in position to take their time, even as the clock ticks. This tower wouldn't even be ready in time for some.
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #809  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2009, 7:59 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 27,644
From wtc.com, you get an idea of the progress being made next door while this one is idle...




__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #810  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2009, 7:28 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 27,644
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/op...tein.html?_r=2

Rebuilding Ground Zero

To the Editor:

Re “Stalemate at Ground Zero” (editorial, May 28):

Contrary to your editorial’s assertion, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s ability to complete the World Trade Center memorial is not in any way dependent on Silverstein Properties. There is zero physical connectivity between Silverstein’s towers, to be located on the east side of Greenwich Street, and the memorial, which the Port Authority is building entirely to the west of the street.

Second, it was the Port Authority — not Silverstein — that initiated a renegotiation of the 2006 agreement when it admitted that it is years behind on its commitments to complete critical site infrastructure.

Since 9/11, the Port Authority has received $2.75 billion out of Silverstein’s rebuilding fund based on assurances it would deliver its rebuilding projects on time. Having failed to make good on its promises, the Port Authority cannot keep those payments and also refuse to use “public money” to ensure a full rebuilding.

Finally, Silverstein is not asking the Port Authority for money. We are asking the agency to guarantee our financing, which will help us obtain construction loans that we will be obligated to repay — at the risk of losing our entire interest in the buildings. This would allow the Port Authority to keep the billions it has already received from Silverstein and to collect billions more in rent from us in the coming decades.

Most important, from a public standpoint, this strategy allows the Port Authority to honor its commitment — made many times since 9/11 — to rebuild Lower Manhattan.

Janno Lieber
President
World Trade Center Properties
New York, June 1, 2009
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #811  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2009, 11:33 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 27,644
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_319/silverhints.html

Silver hints W.T.C. consensus is to build more towers

By Julie Shapiro
June 5 - 11, 2009


The negotiations about the future of the World Trade Center site have been going on behind closed doors, but on Friday, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver gave the first hint of what is happening.

The consensus among the stakeholders appears to be shifting toward developer Silverstein Properties’ goal of building as many office towers as possible with the Port Authority’s help, Silver said.

“That’s the purpose,” Silver said in an interview with Downtown Express. “Build more, and build more now. That is our purpose.”


Silverstein cannot build his Church St. office towers on his own because he cannot get construction financing. The Port has agreed to help with Tower 4 but refused to backstop the financing for Tower 2, saying Silverstein can build it when the economy improves and the Port should not be expected to take the risk of financing offices on spec for a private developer. In place of Tower 2 and the neighboring Tower 3, the Port wants to build temporary six-story retail podiums.

But Silver said Friday that now is the time to build the office towers, allying himself very closely with Silverstein’s position. Silver added that Gov. Jon Corzine and Gov. David Paterson are both being “cooperative” in the goal of building more towers now, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg has previously expressed support for building despite the economic downturn.

That is not to say that the stakeholders have sided entirely with Silverstein against the Port Authority. Silver and Bloomberg have called on Silverstein to devote more money to the project, and on Friday Silver said an agreement would require all the parties to make further investments.

“They’re trying to work through a conclusion that has everybody put in a little more: the Port Authority, the city, the state, and most important, Larry Silverstein,” Silver said. “And I hope to get there.”

The closed-door meetings began after an impasse between Silverstein and the Port Authority over the tower financing and delivery of key site infrastructure threatened to halt progress at the site. Alarmed by that prospect, Silver called all the site stakeholders together, and they held their first meeting May 21 at Gracie Mansion, at Bloomberg’s invitation. The meeting included Bloomberg, Silver, both governors, Larry Silverstein and Port Authority executive director Chris Ward.

Since then, Silver said there have been three major meetings with top stakeholders including Larry Silverstein. Those three meetings were held quietly and out of the public eye, often at odd times of the day, Silver said. In addition, Deputy Mayor Bob Lieber has been chairing daily meetings of lower-level staff representing all the parties, a source familiar with the discussions said.

The next publicly announced meeting of the principals will be Thurs., June 11, and the stakeholders have said they hope to have at least the broad outlines of an agreement by then.

“We’re not there yet,” Silver said Friday. “It’s a matter of money, it’s a matter of commitment, it’s a matter of saving money, it’s a matter of refocusing so we can get a result.”

Bloomberg’s office and Silverstein Properties declined to comment. Steve Coleman, Port spokesperson, said only, “Our position on the Port Authority putting in any more money or risk has not changed.”

All the parties involved have been reluctant to talk after Bloomberg made it clear he wanted the negotiations to be entirely private.

“We’re all sworn to secrecy,” Silver told Downtown Express, explaining why he could not go into more detail.

But Silver did repeat his position that now is the time to build Towers 2 and 4, even though the economy is down.

“We’ll be in a different business cycle by 2014 or 2015,” Silver said. “And there are some people who think, there is no other development going on in the city, no other office space. If you look at all the studies, everybody will tell you there’s going to be a need for expanded commercial space in New York City.”

Silver listed the other office projects that are falling through, from Hudson Yards to Atlantic Yards, which will make the World Trade Center towers all the more important.

“New York, Downtown Manhattan, ground zero is going to be the place to go,” Silver said.

Silver said the rebuilt World Trade Center could follow the example of the original Twin Towers, which initially filled with government offices because there was little demand for commercial space.

Silver’s first district office was in room 5489 of 2 W.T.C., he recalled, and later he was moved down to the 26th floor as the real estate grew more valuable. Finally, he was moved out of the building altogether.

“Hopefully there will be a market for it,” Silver said of the new office towers at the site, “and we can prepare for it.”
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #812  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2009, 9:45 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 27,644
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #813  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2009, 1:37 PM
CoolCzech's Avatar
CoolCzech CoolCzech is offline
Frigidus Maximus
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,598
“That’s the purpose,” Silver said in an interview with Downtown Express. “Build more, and build more now. That is our purpose.”


Damn straight.

I'm sick to death of having this site treated as just another commercial development. The history of the site - the awful slaughter that took place there, it's historical significance as a decisive moment in the War on Terror, it's symbolic importance as (if they ever get the damned thing rebuilt)American resilience in the face of terror... precludes that sort of thinking.

We're talking about the most significant skyline in the United States, America's face to the world. It's beyond mere office buildings: it will be practically a national monument. And damn it, we can't allow grey little faceless bureaucrats to run this thing into the ground.
__________________
http://tinyurl.com/2acxb5t


For the First Time in My Life, I'm Proud of Wisconsin!

Last edited by CoolCzech; Jun 10, 2009 at 12:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #814  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2009, 7:54 PM
Apathanoia Apathanoia is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolCzech View Post

We're talking about the most significant skyline in the United States, America's face to the world. It's beyond mere office buildings: it will be practically a national monument. And damn it, we can't allow grey little faceless bureaucrats run this thing into the ground.
Oops, too late. The fact that we are having these squabbles in the first place means it already happened a good while back. And the fact that is this way also proves that it has degraded the WTC into mere office buildings. If it was a national monument, we would possibly have seen new and these squabbles would have never happened. It wouldn't feel right to declare the new WTC a monument while rejecting the former as mere real estate. But that time has long past.

The best we can do is to take that last sentence of yours and add the word "further" to it.

Also, what will the word be on June 11? Did that Silver statement mean that the plan will likely remain as is? Then again, I remember that when the selection process narrowed between THINK's WCC and the Libeskind design, the LMDC and Co. favored the THINK plan but Pataki (and Bloomberg?) overrode it. The PA could ignore the consensus and "stump" them.
__________________
Do not misunderestimate the stupidity of our politicians. Or any politician, for that matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #815  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2009, 10:39 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 27,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolCzech View Post
We're talking about the most significant skyline in the United States, America's face to the world. It's beyond mere office buildings: it will be practically a national monument.
That's exactly what it is. New York - and the US to some extent - will be judged in the years to come on its response to 9/11. It's why everyone agreed in the beginning that all of the office space would be rebuilt on spec (even though it's not really new supply). Politicians, and particularly these people who run the PA are only around briefly. Witness Pataki's decision to shift the Freedom Tower to position of first built (one of his few good decisions regarding the site). Pataki is long off the scene, yet the Freedom Tower marches towards the sky. It's doubtful it would be now. If PA officials had their way now, and the towers put on ice for a decade or more, it's doubtful they would get built at all. But Silverstein's towers 2 and 3 are really not much bigger than the BofA. When the demand for new office space returns in force (and everyone knows it will), these towers would be ready - but they need to start rising now for that to happen. That's why if Silverstein needs the PA's help to secure financing, so be it.
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #816  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2009, 11:33 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 27,644
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/ny...l?ref=nyregion

Little Progress Is Seen in Talks on Ground Zero

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
June 8, 2009

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the developer Larry Silverstein remain deadlocked over construction of two giant office towers at ground zero, despite more than two weeks of high-level talks with state and city officials aimed at resolving the impasse.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who convened the sessions on May 21, had set a June 11 deadline for the parties to reach an agreement. But the talks have not brought Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority any closer, according to officials on both sides.

The latest indication of the stalemate came on Monday, as a proposal from the city and Mr. Silverstein got a lukewarm reception, according to officials who attended the discussion.

The battle is not over whether the office towers should be built at the World Trade Center site, but when and with whose money.


Mr. Silverstein, who leases the trade center land from the Port Authority, is to build three office towers on the 16-acre site. Unable to obtain the financing or tenants as he once anticipated, Mr. Silverstein has asked the authority to guarantee as much as $3.2 billion in financing for the construction of two of the three towers.

But the authority, which is already spending billions on its own 2.6-million-square-foot office tower at the site, a transit hub, and on portions of the 9/11 memorial, is reluctant to put more money into speculative office space, especially when its revenues are declining sharply. It did, however, offer to guarantee up to $1.2 billion in financing for one of Mr. Silverstein’s towers.

“We remain far apart on a second tower because of how much more public money is required to fund this speculative office building,” said Stephen Sigmund, a Port Authority spokesman. “Our position continues to be that the public’s resources are better spent on public projects first, not more private office space.”

All parties in the talks have been loath to discuss the meetings since agreeing to negotiate in private at a May 21 meeting at Gracie Mansion. Some officials privately acknowledge the lack of progress, even as Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, disputed the notion. “He believes that all the parties continue to act in good faith and are committed to coming up with a solution,” said Dan Weiller, a spokesman for Mr. Silver.

City officials hope for a breakthrough in the hours leading up to Thursday’s deadline.

Last month, the Port Authority made a proposal in which it agreed to guarantee the financing for Mr. Silverstein’s first tower. As for the second, $2.7 billion tower, it agreed to assist with the financing if Mr. Silverstein spent the next two years trying to find tenants for half the space, and invested $370 million of his own money as well as $430 million in insurance proceeds. In an effort to share the risks, the authority also asked the city to cover any shortfalls.

But Mr. Silverstein flatly refused to consider it.

Under his proposal, Mr. Silverstein would assume responsibility for much of the work at ground zero, with the developer claiming that he could save as much as $400 million on the authority’s current budget for the projects. The developer, who has not offered to guarantee those savings, said in a meeting Monday that he would invest $75 million. The arrangement would allow him to make an estimated $120 million in fees.

The city, in turn, has offered to cover up to $100 million in shortfalls in the financing, and has suggested that New York and New Jersey do the same. But the bulk of the financial responsibility for financing the towers would remain with the Port Authority. And neither Gov. David A. Paterson of New York nor Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey has wanted to invest more money in office space, given the condition of their state budgets.
__________________
Love NEW YORK?

Visit New York's icon. See the City of shores. Walk the Streets of Manhattan.
The evolving skyline, NY Skyscrapers & Construction
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #817  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2009, 4:28 PM
NewYorker2009 NewYorker2009 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 258
Okay that's it enough is enough. The Port Authority needs to scrap that piece of shit Transit Hub as it is a waste of money. It's not like they even started work on the Transit Hub yet as the underground structure of the old temporary PATH Station still stands in the way. The demand for office space will boom again once this economic crisis is over so they should consider to help Silverstein fund his Three Towers, not one, not two, but all of them. The Port has already taken billions from Silverstein and they keep getting richer as it is so why don't they just cut the bullshit and build the Towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #818  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2009, 6:08 PM
Pizzuti Pizzuti is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 838
As a person who doesn't live in NYC, I don't think people outside the city are really judging America's strength/weakness on the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site. Nor are they using it to formulate observations about the city. Politicians may choose to frame the site that way to fulfill their own political ambitions - but that's not what ordinary people are thinking right now.

We've already done too much to tie the WTC site to a symbolic American response to 9/11. There are so many people in the country or in New York, and so few with actual influence over what happens with the site, that it would be unfair and strange to judge the country based on rebuilding. It was always clearly going to be a battleground for many competing interests and entities that would take a long time to hash it out.

I see how someone from New York City, where 9/11 was about the attack itself and the death and destruction there, not some generalized, vague assault on freedom or America, would see the site as an important symbol. I was in high school and feeling oppressed by the suburban, socially conservative place I lived in, and was in LOVE with New York City (where I had never been, but thought of it as a tolerant place for an eccentric teenager), I had the neighborhoods and prominent buildings of Manhattan memorized, and was first in line hoping to see the site rebuilt as soon as possible, with something bigger and stronger and greater than what had been there before. I had pictures of the trade center all over my bedroom wall, I was one of the few who knew what "towers 1 and 2" meant when they announced at school that they had fell (most kids were thinking the world trade center was the Empire State Building). Twin Towers were emblematic of New York City and the city hasn't yet gotten a new emblem to put in its place.

But I guarantee you that nobody is saying "oh, I guess NYC wasn't really so great or important after all" because of the delay. Nor are they taking it to mean anything about America. Nor can I imagine that a person living in France or China, who, when considering the United States, looks to see if they've re-built the WTC site yet.

When I think of physical places, symbols or objects in NYC I think of subways, Central Park, the Empire State Building, taxis, Broadway, the Brooklyn Bridge, the New York Times, and finally the World Trade Center, in that order. Most people see NYC being characterized by ethnic diversity, sexual liberation, vulgarity, an arts and cultural capital, self-importance, liberalism, a banking capitol, rudeness, social tolerance... in that order. Those are just images I get and not necessarily judgments or analysis. They think of cities (especially those as high profile as New York) as the people and not as much the physical objects in them, if that makes any sense.

As far as this discussion goes with New Yorkers wanting this to get rebuilt soon, skyscraper enthusiasts wanting this to be rebuilt soon, and those immediately effected by 9/11 wanting it to be rebuilt soon (perhaps; I don't really know what the families think), I'm on board and in favor of that discussion. I hope it gets rebuilt ASAP too. But don't worry about this affecting New York's image to those living in other states - it doesn't have any effect whatsoever. Those who are current enough on national events to pay attention are also aware of the complexities of the process and know it's a difficult feat to bring everyone together.

Last edited by Pizzuti; Jun 9, 2009 at 6:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #819  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2009, 6:14 PM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,736
As a person who also lives outside NY, I have to say that everyone I've talked to about the rebuilding views it as a response to 9/11. People ask "why haven't they built the Freedom Tower yet?" and "Why didn't they just rebuild the Twin Towers?" People definitely see it as an important aspect of our resolve post-9/11, or at least they did. A lot of people have simply forgotten about it or shoved it into the back of their minds because it's taken so damn long.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #820  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2009, 7:43 PM
rich_200's Avatar
rich_200 rich_200 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 4,451
I think when people from outside the US hears about something great being built in the US it's something good. Failing to rebuild this could be seen as a weakness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.