13
22 FEBRUARY 2001
Better late than never, seems the Hearst Corporation have thought,
when they contacted the British archi firm of Foster
& Partners about completing the Hearst Magazine Building at 595
Broadway.
"The current building � a landmark designed by Joseph Urban in 1926 � has
only six stories. Marked by monumental pylons whose tops reach far above the
roofline, the squat structure was intended as the base of a larger building, but
the Depression and World War II got in the way."
Meant to collect the now-dispersed Hearst Corp. magazines under
one roof, the building will also consolidate the company's long
roots (and once-ambitious aspirations) in the area.
"The Hearst project would join a media row along Broadway, with the Random
House headquarters under construction between 55th and 56th Streets and the
AOL Time Warner Center soon to rise from foundations on Columbus Circle.
"But the other companies do not have Hearst's deep roots at Columbus Circle,
which go back 106 years to the acquisition by William Randolph Hearst of The
New York Journal, at Broadway and 58th Street. Hearst planned towers around
the circle and imagined it as "Hearst Plaza.""
Except for 1946 plans for a nine-storey tower, there have been no
serious attempts to extend the building's Art Deco and Vienna
Secession-styled base.
"The project would undoubtedly be expensive. And it faces engineering
challenges, governmental review, an uncertain real estate market and probable
opposition from neighbors."
Source: The New York Times, 22 February 2001
30 Nov:
The design has now been unveiled and tentatively approved by the Landmarks
Preservation Commission.
"'It really does complete the building,' Ms. Paulsen [the chairwoman]
said. 'The very theatrical aspects of Urban's design are realized.'"
The development was, overall, seen as a positive sign in the present
situation:
"[...] the Rev. Dr. Thomas F. Pike, a member of the commission, said
the timing of the proposal so soon after the attack on New York would send a hopeful sign that 'the creative process goes on' in the city.
"His enthusiasm was shared by the Municipal Art Society, the New York
Landmarks Conservancy, the New York chapter of the American Institute of
Architects and Community Board 4 in mid-Manhattan."
The official proceedings reflect that feeling too:
"The Hearst Corporation and Lord Foster had so carefully cultivated
support for the project that the entire formal review lasted only 2 hours
and 40 minutes, from the opening statement by Frank A. Bennack Jr., president
and chief executive of Hearst, through Lord Foster's presentation, public
testimony, questions and answers, commissioners' remarks and the vote."
There has also been resistance to the way the design turned out:
"'"Isn't it a neat building?" is not the question,' said Simeon Bankoff,
executive director of the Historic Districts Council, which did not support
the plan. 'The question is whether it's appropriate. We feel it's not an
appropriate building. It does not respond to, respect or even speak to its
landmark base.'"
For details, see the New Developments entry.
Source: The New York Times, 30 November 2001
14
1 MARCH 2001
The investment bankers Goldman Sachs are planning to replace the elevated
plaza at 55 Water Street with a new addition
including several large trading floors. The development would use air
rights transferred all the way from the South Street Seaport district.
"To build the new 13-story, 750,000- square-foot [69,700 m²]
trading structure, designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, Goldman
Sachs would eliminate the elevated plaza and alter the north tower,
adding 35 feet to its height. The trading floors would have 56,000 square
feet [5,200 m²], an extraordinary amount of room in the cramped
financial district."
And as usual, the city and state will be milked for corporate welfare.
"The project's cost has been estimated at $850 million. The company
might apply for financial incentives from the city and state. Completion
of the building is expected at the end of 2004."
The banking firm has already leased spaces from a host of buildings across
the Financial District.
"Besides the headquarters at 85 Broad Street,
Goldman Sachs leases large blocks at 10 Hanover Square,
1 Liberty Plaza, 180 Maiden Lane,
1 New York Plaza, 32
Old Slip and 77 Water Street."
The company is proposing to provide funds for neighbourhood improvements.
"To make up for the loss of open space, Goldman Sachs would pay for $5
million in improvements nearby. It would furnish a 1,300-foot stretch of
East River esplanade, from Old Slip to the Battery Maritime Building, with
a bike path, a walkway and seating; landscape a barren public area in front
of 55 Water Street; and contribute to the renovation of Vietnam Veterans
Plaza on the south side of the tower."
A part of a futuristic plan, the plaza hasn't been a total success, not least
due to owners' actions through the years.
"Fifty-four steps above street level � and even farther off the beaten
path � the plaza is one of the largest privately owned public spaces in New
York."
"Escalators to the plaza have frequently not worked in the past (and were not
operating yesterday and Monday). In the 1980's, when 55 Water Street was
owned by Olympia & York, stairways to the plaza were barricaded for
years."
"Today, it is isolated, barren, usually deserted and sometimes downright
scary. A concession stand has long since been boarded up and the fountains
silenced."
(I can agree on the scary part, while taking the
plaza image last May, I was definitely
working faster than normally...)
But the residents in the 205 co-ops of the 3 Hanover Square are against
the proposition, partly because of lost river views.
""It is somewhat ironic [...] that part of the reward for neglecting a
public plaza is giving the ownership the right to not only eliminate the
public space but to add a 750,000- square-foot building on the site.""
Source: The New York Times, 28 February 2001
7 Mar:
The tower plans have been swiftly reversed and Goldman Sachs will let
the lease fall through.
"The company's withdrawal puts 1.38 million square feet at 55 Water Street
back on the market � more space than in the entire Chrysler Building. It will
be vacated in 2003 by J. P. Morgan Chase & Company."
The owner of the building is expecting to get the space easily sold
nevertheless:
"Other prospective tenants have already spoken up since Goldman Sachs made
its decision known on Monday evening, said Edward J. Kulik Jr., the head of
real estate for the Retirement Systems of Alabama, which manages the state's
pension programs and owns 55 Water Street."
The owners haven't, however, completely ruled out a later-day tower addition
to the plaza.
Source: The New York Times, 7 March 2001
15
5 MARCH 2001
Another Speyer news, again.
Jerry Speyer's Tishman Speyer has closed a $300 million deal, handing
over a 75 per cent stake of the Chrysler
Building to a German investment group.
"The investment group, TMW, can now claim a hold on a 77-story
skyscraper with an internationally recognized profile. But the current
owners, Tishman Speyer Properties and Travelers Group, will retain
control of the tower and the adjoining 32-story Chrysler East
building."
The deal originated from an auction effort of the building last year
-- as the expected $800 million offer wasn't forthcoming (the buildings
had cost $220 million in 1997 + $100 million worth of renovations),
a financing deal was struck instead.
As for where we're going now:
"Under the terms of the deal, the 1.2- million-square-foot Chrysler
Building is valued at $400 million. The smaller tower, once known as
the Kent Building, is valued at about $300
million."
The partners of the deal also co-own the Tishman
Building on Fifth Avenue.
Source: The New York Times, 5 March 2001
16
6 APRIL 2001
Was already wondering which one they're gonna vacate...
Deutsche Bank is probably the next (and only second) owner of the
60 Wall Street, built for the J.P. Morgan
Bank to Downtown Manhattan. After being vacated by the late-2000-merged
bank of J.P. Morgan Chase (with the nearby 1 Chase
Manhattan Plaza remaining in the bank's hands), the German bank
will combine its operations within this one office building:
"Deutsche Bank has about 10,000 employees spread among its current
headquarters, at 31 West 52nd Street, and 130
Liberty Street and seven other buildings, including three in Jersey
City. An executive who had been briefed on the deal said, 'To have
everyone in one location is a positive thing for a bank.'"
J.P. Morgan Chase vacated the building in favour of a Midtown
location, an ongoing trend in the financial/banking sector (along with
leaving for Jersey City, something that the bank has made with
operations in the 55 Water Street).
"Deutsche Bank and its broker, Insignia/ESG, had been scouting sites
for well over a year. Deutsche Bank finally latched onto 60 Wall Street
after J. P. Morgan quietly began circulating sales information."
The deal also continues the series of heavy-duty NYC financial
transactions:
"Real estate executives estimated the sale price would fall between
$530 million and $640 million."
Source: The New York Times, 6 April 2001
17
27 MAY 2001
The practice of open houses, open-door presentations by real
estate agents of apartments for sale, are only one of the many
forms of peeping activities in The City, and also have their
share of heavy-duty "activists".
"While estimates vary, a number of agents figure that at least
20 percent of their open house traffic is not serious."
In a way they are only a pre-virtual reality, lo-tech civic (or
rather, private) activity:
"'For the everyday person who wants to see what a
million-to-a-two-and-a-half-million-dollar apartment looks like,
instead of looking at it in Architectural Digest, they can walk
through,'"
The Man himself is however not so amused about the activity on
his properties, including the new
Trump World Tower:
"'In a certain way, they're virtually professional con artists,'
Donald J. Trump said. 'Sadly, I get more than anyone else by far.'
Of all his properties, he said, Trump World Tower, on First Avenue
and 48th Street, attracts the most 'false hunters,' as he calls
them. 'It's the tallest residential building in the world,' he
said. 'They all want to see it.'"
And finally a new sightseeing hint for overseas tourists:
"Even tourists find their way to open houses. Robert Gross, a
senior vice president at Douglas Elliman, said he had some visitors
from Japan last year. 'They came in with their guidebooks and the
Sunday Times,' Mr. Gross recalled."
Mark my words & forget about Brooks's The Producers,
this will be the next Big Thing in the Big Apple...
Source: The New York Times, 26 May 2001
10 Mar 2002:
What did I say? The new craze (even more so post-9/11) is indeed
gaining momentum:
"It's 'the perfect post-9/11 activity,' said Frederick W. Peters,
president of Ashforth Warburg Associates, a real estate brokerage.
'It combines the New York obsession with money and investment, and
the post-September preoccupation with home and family.' And
although there is no citywide record of open-house attendance, Mr.
Peters estimates that the number of shoppers has quadrupled since
last year."
Just like any other popular "hit", the Open Houses has expanded
almost out of control:
"In past years, open houses were businesslike affairs with a few
serious buyers and a curious neighbor or two inspecting the cabinets
and pacing out the bedrooms. But things have changed. On Sunday alone,
there were 408 open houses in Manhattan, attended by thousands of
inquisitive visitors."
In the recent months the residential market has been characterized by
the duality of, on one hand, the post-9/11 discount market in
Downtown (especially in Battery Park City), on the other the
hyperactive uptown market with heated activity.
"'It's madness, what's going on,' [buyer] Mr. Galper said
with a smile. 'It's been like this ever since people lost faith in the
stock market and have decided real estate is safer. And, from what
we're told, there's not much available, and a lot of people looking
for it.' He glanced around. The agent was racing up to the entrance.
'Hopefully, the market won't kill itself,' Mr. Galper said, following
her through the mahogany double doors."
Source: The New York Times, 9 March 2002
9 Sept 2004:
In two years, the situation has turned into a headache for building
residents and co-op boards:
"At a time when low interest rates and scant inventories of available
apartments are helping sellers draw 100-plus crowds to open houses,
their neighbors are becoming fed up with what they see as marauding
hordes invading their privacy. They are tired of strangers clogging
elevators, wandering halls, popping down to the basement to inspect
laundry rooms and knocking on doors to ask pesky questions about pet
policies and party rules."
And why stop there:
"At one Upper East Side open house, said Sam Elias, a broker with
Halstead Property, some buyers knocked on neighbors' doors, asking
residents if they were interested in selling."
This has led to an inevitable backlash in the way the open houses are
now dealt with:
"Some co-op boards and condominium associations are now clamping down,
limiting how many people may attend an open house at a time, demanding
that brokers escort every buyer or, in some cases, banning open houses
altogether."
A controlled presentation is the order of the day, although the changed
policies may well have an effect on the financial outcome of apartment
sales:
"Elaine Clayman, a broker with Brown Harris Stevens [...] said
that without open houses, sellers 'are not going to get the energy of one
buyer playing off the other, or buyers seeing offers being made in
front of them.'"
The competitive atmosphere of the open house can help fetch offers
that exceed an original asking price:
"By Monday morning, [seller] Mr. Sukenik said he had received
three offers, all over the asking price of $989,000. On Tuesday, a buyer
signed a contract for more than $1 million, he said.
"'Residents who encourage bans on open houses are shooting
themselves in the foot. It's a double-edged sword, because if they don't
want to see people in their lobby now, they're darn well going to want
to see them when they go to sell their apartment.'"
Source: The New York Times, 13 May 2004
18
21 JULY 2001
The always unease marriage of developers and architects is now
nevertheless getting a dose of counselling as the new, trendy
wave of NYC residential skyscrapers clad by the Architectural
Names is gaining momentum.
Donald is not the only one well-versed in making hyperboles; the
developer of the new 425 Fifth Avenue
has come forth with no less extravagant comments that will be
boosted by the presence of the name of architect Michael Graves:
"The fact is that my building is going to become one of the
Three Sisters, along with the Empire State Building and the
Chrysler Building. This isn't grandiose. This is reality. It's
going to penetrate the skyline. It will change every postcard of
New York City."
The power behind the newly-found collaboration of the two
professions has (usually) been the interest from condo buyers that
the involvement of a well-known architect can bring to the sales
market.
"'In the current glutted market, the signature name gets people
through the door.'"
For a relatively bearable increase in architect fees, the increased
sales -- as well as, sometimes, more streamlined application process
in the hands of the city officials -- can be a valuable asset.
"'Basically, New York housing is designed by formula, with lots
of restrictions.' And it's not just because of zoning. Between the
bankers who lend the money and the developers, the notion of what
will sell 'is so conservative, so tightly drawn, both by code and
convention, that it's impossible to get anything approved.'"
And talking about Donald, the first major NYC residential project
using a "name" architect, Philip Johnson's
Trump International Hotel & Tower, was
indeed a success on the market, even though not between the two
major players:
"'Philip had a few ideas about the skin of the building � that's
all,' Mr. Trump said last week. 'Philip added much more to the
promotional value of the building than he did to the design.'"
And in the spirit of mutual friendliness the reply from Johnson was:
"'That's very funny. I said the same of him.'"
But not even a name designer like Johnson can ensure success with
the officials; his planned residential tower at the
West Village/TriBeCa waterside is likely to be snubbed:
"The building, which needs both height and use variances to be
built, would be 26 stories high. 'I don't think we'll get it,' Mr.
Johnson said on Monday, of the variances. 'The rules are that
buildings can only be so high in that district, and we're double
that.'"
Thank God.
But despite the aggravating working conditions, NYC is The Place
to come and design a work:
"'When you're talked about here, it registers everywhere. It's
the premier marketplace in the country. It's like a great big
trumpet.'"
On the other hand, as the NYC developer maxim according to
Don Trump (who rejoined his old designer C. Kondylis for the
Trump World Tower) goes:
"'If I were a buyer, I'd much rather have a great developer than
a great architect.'"
Source: The New York Times, 19 July 2001
19
18 AUGUST 2001
A loosened scaffolding for a construction elevator at the construction
site of the Westin New York Hotel at
Eighth and 43rd led to the closing of the street for five hours.
"Firefighters and police officers began closing off the block to
pedestrians and traffic, while workers installed additional braces.
Fire apparatus and rescue trucks at Eighth Avenue and 43rd Street
snarled traffic before safety officials determined that the scaffold
was not in danger of collapse. The block was reopened to traffic by
6 p.m."
If the incident seemed similar to the one that occurred at the nearby
Condé Nast Building in 1998, also
the supplier of the elevator, Universal Builders Supply, was the
same.
"In the earlier accident, in July 1998, a 700-foot elevator scaffold
at the 48-story Cond� Nast building in Times Square buckled and broke,
killing a woman in a nearby hotel and paralyzing traffic for several
days. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration later
found that the scaffolding had been missing critical support braces on
10 floors and fined Universal $18,200."
The Buildings Department investigates the causes of the failure, but
the company has already been fined $7,600 in February this year for
safety violations.
Source: The New York Times, 17 August 2001
20
7 OCTOBER 2001
With the dust settling in Downtown Manhattan and the clearing of
debris underway, Larry Silverstein -- the head of the consortium
led by Silverstein Properties that leased the World Trade Center
and also owned the collapsed 7 WTC -- is already planning a new
development to the site:
"'I am obligated by my lease to pay rent for 99 years, I am
obligated to rebuild, and I have the money to rebuild,' he explained,
referring in an interview to his expectation that insurance companies
would pay him more than enough money to build what he vowed would be
"world class quality" office buildings. 'It seems to me I am going to
end up rebuilding; the only question is how best to accomplish that,'
he said."
With the situation being unbalanced and still very much clouded by
uncertain economic future, prompt action is the developer's way:
"Mr. Silverstein's pledge � he said he wanted to erect an
"appropriate" memorial to the 6,000 victims and resurrect ten million
square feet of lost office space � also serves as a way for him to
stake his claim early in a shifting landscape of loss, economic
uncertainty, competition and clashing political interests."
Silverstein has wasted little time in getting the wheels turning
and the connections and backing cleared for a redevelopment.
"Mr. Silverstein has attended memorial services and fund-raisers,
and he has also met with his lawyers, advisers and government
officials. Last week, he hired the prominent architect David Childs
of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. New York officials went to Washington
to meet with the New York congressional delegation to press for
more federal aid. So did Mr. Silverstein, in meetings yesterday with
Representative Charles B. Rangel and others. Mr. Silverstein sought
federal guarantees for construction loans and protection from
lawsuits brought by the victims or their families, according to a
government aide who attended the meeting."
As for the economic impact on Silverstein Properties:
"Mr. Silverstein said that he was entitled to $3.6 billion in
insurance to cover the losses in each terrorist attack, and that
since there were two, he was counting on $7.2 billion. He acknowledged
that the insurance companies disagreed with his theory, but added,
'they are showing every sign of acting like statesmen.'"
One thing that I wasn't personally aware was the insurance for such
a vast amount -- or that the insurance companies would be prepared to
pay for such an occurrence... So, far from being broke, Silverstein
Properties should be well-off for any kind of future redevelopment.
Source: The New York Times, 5 October 2001
24 Oct:
Not so fast. As can be guessed, the insurance settlement for the
terrorist attack of September the 11th is actually far from settled,
given the vast amount of payment in question:
"After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest
insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday.
The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of
what the buildings' managers are asking."
The problem stems from the differing views on the issue of "separate
terrorist attacks" as a basis for payment. According to the insurance
policy -- that was, moreover, still under negotiations during the
attacks -- the insurers (22 companies in all, with Swiss Re, the
world's second largest insurance company, providing 22% of the pool)
were to pay $3.5 billion for each terrorist attack on the center.
"The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on
the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion
from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that
crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5
billion in insurance."
The company disagrees and adds:
"In its complaint, Swiss Re also suggested that Mr. Silverstein had
significantly underinsured the center, taking out $3.5 billion to
protect property and an income-stream from renters that was worth more
than $5 billion over three years."
The lack of tenant income from the vast complex is indeed going to
hit Silverstein's profits hard and make a dent in the developer's
ability to re-develop the site.
"Mr. Silverstein � who, like many real estate developers, invested
relatively little in the deal and was highly leveraged � has said he
intends to use the insurance proceeds to construct new buildings on
the site. But lawyers say that some of his lenders fear the insurance
may be inadequate to cover both the loss of the buildings and the lost
rental income that had been viewed as crucial to making the interest
payments on the loans that were secured by Mr. Silverstein's company
to acquire the lease last summer."
While the court battle goes on and the insurance companies seek
financial federal support for payments of future terrorist acts,
Swiss Re is starting payments:
"Mr. DuBois [a top Swiss Re exec] said yesterday that the
company had begun to take steps to provide initial payments to Mr.
Silverstein's companies and the
Port Authority, the owners of the property. The insurers have agreed
to make an advance payment on claims of about $75 million, and Mr.
DuBois said the lawsuit was also part of the effort to swiftly resolve
legal issues."
Source: The New York Times, 23 October 2001
6 Nov:
The battle has only just begun:
The loss of revenue income is getting critical for Silverstein
Properties as time drags on:
"Mr. Silverstein paid about $6 million on his mortgage last month;
[...] For now, he can cover that and other expenses �
including $10 million a month in ground rent to the Port Authority �
out of a pool of lease payments and security deposits paid in advance
by Trade Center tenants. But even with the fund he can probably afford
to hold out for no more than four months without receiving insurance
payments."
The political and financial pressures also spur him to make moves to
prepare for reconstruction on the site.
"A battery of architects, engineers and cultural experts is being
consulted to draw up plans and blunt efforts by rivals to control
reconstruction.
"At the same time, Mr. Silverstein is trying to hold together a
coalition that includes the Port Authority, which owns the site, and
his lenders and co-investors in the buildings that have been destroyed.
It is a tenuous alliance, one which is certain to fracture should some
members begin to sense that they will not be repaid by Mr. Silverstein
or come to believe that he cannot get all the money he claims that the
insurers owe him and cannot cap his liability."
The insurer counterparts naturally try to persuade the developer to
let the redevelopment effort fall through -- less money spent on
construction supports their view of smaller insurance payments and
lessens pressure on full compensation.
"The suit by Swiss Re, the insurer with the most at stake in the
Trade Center disaster, is a clear effort to put pressure on the alliance
and possibly prompt some of the investors or lenders to pressure Mr.
Silverstein to walk away from a rebuilding effort, experts say."
"If Mr. Silverstein's insurers pay him only $3.6 billion, his
desire to rebuild could be frustrated. The value of the Silverstein
group's remaining lease payments to the Port Authority is about $2.6
billion. The developer also owes about $30 million annually to the
city in lieu of real estate taxes, and several hundred million
dollars more to lenders."
As for the core of the debate, the "one or two instances?":
"Mr. Silverstein's lawyers maintain that New York state law, which
governs the case, makes clear that each crash and collapse was a
separate insurable event. In 1959, they note, the New York Court of
Appeals found that the collapse of two walls in adjoining buildings
owned by one person, 50 minutes apart, were distinct events."
Despite claims of under-insurance, the maximum of $3.6 was in fact
dictated by the insurers themselves as a maximum they were going to
go.
"When the Port Authority ran the trade center, it had $1.5 billion
of insurance coverage. The Silverstein group of investors initially
sought $2.3 billion in coverage, but lenders wanted more. So Mr.
Silverstein's partnership raised the coverage to $3.25 billion and
then, about a week after the closing, to $3.6 billion."
In any case, the fate of any redevelopment will be eventually decided
by higher forces:
"Even if Mr. Silverstein ultimately wins the money he wants, any
effort to rebuild inevitably comes back to the Port Authority and
the governments of the states of New York and New Jersey and of New
York City.
"They may not be interested in supporting Mr. Silverstein's ambitious
desire to replace all of the trade center's 10 million square feet
of office space and 500,000 square feet of retail space just now
because of the slowing economy and potential tenants' concern about
further terrorist attacks. If he duplicated the twin towers' size
� whether in two 110-story towers or a combination of shorter
buildings � many people involved in ongoing negotiations worry
privately that no one would rent the space."
Source: The New York Times, 3 November 2001
28 Aug 2002:
The proposals about land swap of the WTC site to city control could
affect Silverstein also, with him being ousted from the developer's
seat:
"It remains to be seen whether a deal for a land swap will be struck.
But as much as Mr. Silverstein wants to avoid the idea of his elimination,
the insurance carriers with whom he is battling in court have rushed to
embrace it. The insurers have bitterly opposed his claim that the attack
on the trade center constituted two events � two planes, two towers �
which would entitle him to a double payment totaling about $7 billion.
"The companies have described Mr. Silverstein's claim as extortionate.
They recently offered to pay him $1.8 billion."
Which is interestingly only about half of the amount agreed on a
single occurrence scenario... Those insurance companies, little
rascals...
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the insurance claims and the presence
of Silverstein in the redevelopment of the site were still secure:
"[...] Mr. Silverstein's 99-year lease with the Port Authority
required him to continue paying rent and to rebuild what was there.
Furthermore, few executives at the authority wanted to jeopardize Mr.
Silverstein's $7 billion insurance claim, because that money would be used
for rebuilding. If he is successful, the authority's share of the insurance
proceeds would jump to $3 billion, from $1.5 billion."
In the recent months, however, Silverstein position has become precarious,
with his role in the future of the site ranging from being a co-developer
in a part of the original site (and perhaps on some nearby, off-GZ plot)
to being completely ousted. In either case, he'd be likely to get only
a portion of the total insurance claim.
"'Larry will need to save face in some way,' said one executive who
has negotiated with Mr. Silverstein in the past. 'This was his dream,
and he won it fair and square.'"
The case will be settled in two trials: the first one from 4 November
onwards, to determine whether there were one or two attack occurrences,
the second one (carried out if the first trial concludes there were
two occurrences) to determine the amount of damage payments.
Source: The New York Times, 17/24 August 2002
7 October 2002:
The battle of forms:
"The trial over the multibillion-dollar insurance claims at the World
Trade Center is likely to be delayed until at least next spring, so that
the complex's leaseholder, Larry A. Silverstein, can file an appeal of a
recent ruling involving 3 of the 22 insurance companies involved in the
case.
"Judge Martin ruled on Wednesday that the Hartford Fire Insurance,
Royal Indemnity and the St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company are
liable for only a single payout totaling $112 million in connection with
the attack on the trade center, not the double payment demanded by Mr.
Silverstein."
The other insurance companies involved in the WTC insurance deal will
seek similar decisions that would effectively restrict their liability.
"On the advice of the Federal justice overseeing the World Trade Center
insurance case, lawyers for the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties
plan to ask the higher court make an expedited ruling on whether New York
law would apply to the main Travelers' insurance binder, which has no
definition of what constitutes an 'occurrence.'"
The appeal to the three-judge US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
will determine whether the companies were bound to the limiting WilProp
form that limits losses in multi-occurrence mishaps or to no form at all.
The appeal will likely postpone the decisive jury trial to March.
Sources: The New York Times, 27 September 2002 +
New York Post, 28 September 2002
22 December 2002:
The Federal judge has reversed his earlier decision and ruled that the
three companies are, after all, required to treat the attacks as two
separate occurrences.
" In September, [the Judge John] Martin sided with three
insurance companies who viewed the Sept. 11 attacks as one occurrence
- reducing Silverstein's potential payout even before a trial. The
developer is appealing those rulings.
"Yesterday, three more insurers asked for the same ruling. But Martin
turned them down."
Hearings will be postponed to March, with the trial set for
mid-2003.
"The suit could affect rebuilding at the WTC site. Silverstein wants
to replace the office space at an estimated cost of $6.5 billion, not
counting lease payments to the Port Authority."
Source: NY Daily News, 20 December 2002
29 November 2003:
Oh how time flies. And oh how there's still no resolution on the
insurance issue:
" Fifteen months ago, Judge John S. Martin of the United State District
Court asked the two sides to reach a settlement in a last-ditch attempt
to avoid a trial. Swiss Re offered $1.8 billion on behalf of the insurance
companies, while Mr. Silverstein wanted $5.7 billion. And last month, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Mr.
Silverstein's argument that he was owed two insurance payouts as a matter
of law, saying it was a matter for a jury trial."
Despite a successful "holdout policy" by the leading insurers, some have
preferred to get out of the 9 percent interest to be paid on top of a
payback:
"So far, the insurers have paid out $1.9 billion, $600 million of which
has been spent on rent, debt service, legal fees and other items."
Holding their own, an offer from the main insurer doesn't seem like a
great windfall for the developer:
" Jacques E. Dubois, chief executive of Swiss Re, said yesterday that
his company remained 'ready, willing and able to honor its contractual
obligation to pay its share of the $3.5 billion as expenses are incurred.'
If Mr. Silverstein wants a lump sum payment, he said, the net present value
of the claim would be about $2.3 billion. That is not a figure likely to
win an agreement from Mr. Silverstein, downtown executives said."
If Silverstein loses the jury trial, he'd be short of funds for rebuilding,
although he pledges to keep on construction schedule.
"A single-occurrence payout would provide "between 60 and 65 percent"
of the total rebuilding cost, which he estimates to be 'in excess of $6
billion.'"
And there is to be yet more material for courtroom contention:
"Silverstein's lawyers will argue that Travelers, one of his insurers,
successfully claimed in a California case that the near-simultaneous
burnings of four different courthouses by a deranged man constituted
'multiple events.'
"'When a jury hears that Travelers is speaking out of both sides of their
mouth, it will view [9/11] as multiple events, which New York deserves,'
Silverstein said."
Silverstein, on the other hand, seems to have deserved to have a notable
refund of the deal-making equity payment:
"Under a sweeping agreement between the developer and the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, Mr. Silverstein and his partners,
who include the investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre, will get back
$98 million, or almost 80 percent of the $125 million in equity that they
invested in a 2001 deal that gave them control of the World Trade Center
for the next 99 years. The Port Authority, which built and owned the
trade center, valued the original deal at $3.2 billion."
In 2001, Silverstein collected a group of investors to grab the perhaps
most prestigious concentration of real estate in NYC:
"He raised about $110 million from the Goldman real estate family and
Joseph Cayre, an investor who made a fortune in the entertainment
industry before shifting to real estate. His group borrowed $563 million
from GMAC. For its part of the trade center deal, Westfield put up about
$127 million.
"Mr. Silverstein's group then paid the Port Authority a $491 million
down payment and together with Westfield agreed to pay about $120 million
a year in rent. Six weeks later, terrorists steered two commercial jets
into the twin towers."
In order to streamline the ongoing WTC rebuilding process in terms of
fund availability, the lender for Silverstein's base funding for the 2001
bid is bought out:
"Mr. Silverstein's windfall is a byproduct of an agreement by both
sides to use insurance proceeds to pay off his lender in the trade center
deal, the GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, at a cost of $563
million.
"When GMAC is paid off, the lender will turn over to Mr. Silverstein
an escrow account with $130 million in insurance proceeds and a $98
million reserve account, according to three people involved in the
negotiations.
"As part of his agreement with the Port Authority, Mr. Silverstein will
use the $130 million sum for rebuilding, as well as any other business
interruption insurance proceeds that are not spent on ground rent and
other expenses. But he and his investors will keep the $98 million, the
three people said."
Nice for the investors.
The removal of potential nuisances to rebuilding efforts includes also
the original retail leaseholder:
"At the same time, the two sides agreed that the Port Authority would pay
$140 million to buy out Mr. Silverstein's partner, Westfield America,
which controlled the retail mall at the trade center."
There are also voices that dissent the financial proceedings:
"'Only in New York can a developer strike a deal with government to
get his money back and still walk away with a prime piece of real estate,'
said Harvey Robins, who was a top city administrator in the late 1980's
and early 1990's."
Sources: The New York Times, 10 October 2003 +
New York Post, 14 October 2003 +
The New York Times, 22 November 2003
23 February 2004:
The gloves are off and the court battle on -- at the stake the ruling
about whether the insurers would have to double the amount they are
willing to pay as a coverage for the terrorist attack.
"Mr. Silverstein has lost a series of crucial rulings leading up
to the trial, but both sides have expressed optimism over the ultimate
outcome. Opening statements will come from a trio of shrewd and
colorful lawyers, with Barry R. Ostrager and David Boies representing
the insurers and Herbert M. Wachtell representing the
developer."
The insurers will have to hope that Boies succeeds better now than
in November-December 2000...
"Judge Michael B. Mukasey of Federal District Court, who is
hearing the case, has tried to contain the issues. He threatened
contempt charges if the two sides talked to the news media in an
attempt to sway public sentiment. And he told the jury last week that
he did not know if the verdict would affect the rebuilding effort,
but he cautioned jurors that it should not 'enter into your decision
in this case.'"
We'll see about that.
If the single occurrence ruling is the result, the insurers have
already paid a considerable portion of their liability:
"So far, the insurers have paid out $1.9 billion, $600 million of
which has been spent on rent, debt service and legal fees. (An
additional $700 million was spent on paying off the mortgage on the
property and buying out the trade center mall operator, Westfield
America. But both Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey are required to replenish the rebuilding fund when the
insurance case is resolved.)"
The issue of differing forms will
be vital in determining the outcome of the trial:
"This trial is to determine whether Swiss Re and 12 other insurers
were bound by Wilprop, as they contend. Swiss Re's legal arguments
have centered on one of Mr. Silverstein's insurance executives, Robert
Strachan, the developer's risk manager. The day after the attack, Mr.
Strachan sent out a memo indicating that the insurance language
entitled Mr. Silverstein to one payment of $3.5 billion.
"But Mr. Silverstein's pretrial memo contends that Swiss Re never
accepted the Wilprop form and that the company was later notified that
the Travelers form was going to be used in the placement."
Some reinsurers are already out of the fray:
"The court has already ruled that three insurers, with a total
coverage of $112 million, were bound by Wilprop, which regards the
destruction of the trade center as a single occurrence. Early on, Mr.
Silverstein settled with two other companies, with coverage totaling
$365 million."
Source: The New York Times, 9 February 2004
9 September 2004:
It's all but over:
"A federal jury in Manhattan said yesterday that the single largest
insurer at the World Trade Center was limited to a single payout of $877
million, not the double payment sought by the developer Larry A.
Silverstein in his long-running legal battle over the downtown
complex."
Despite Silverstein's claims that the form to be used in determining
the "occurrences" in the attack was eventually switched to the
double-payment Travelers form:
"The jury said yesterday that Swiss Re, like 13 other insurers, had
committed to providing insurance based on a proposed policy devised by
Mr. Silverstein's own brokers, which was known as the Wilprop
form."
The decision was a big blow to the leaseholder, who had been expecting
to finance the reconstruction through the insurance proceeds.
"The jury's latest decision reduces the maximum possible payout
to $4.5 billion, if Mr. Silverstein wins every remaining legal battle,
including a second trial that could start in August."
With the income from the insurers now severely reduced, Silverstein's
ability to commit fully to the original promise of rebuilding the
center has also been decisively reduced and his role in the redevelopment
questioned.
"A city official who requested anonymity suggested that it was wiser
to allow Mr. Silverstein to build the first tower, at an estimated cost
of $1.5 billion. The other office sites could be sold to other developers
when there are tenants.
'You've got to let him save face,' the official said. 'They've got to cut
a deal where he remains the developer of the first building, with a profit
interest, and then cut him loose.'"
Source: The New York Times, 4 May 2004
19 December 2004:
After the string of courtroom disasters, a small triumph for
Silverstein:
"A federal jury has decided that the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade
Center was two occurrences for insurance purposes, meaning leaseholder
Larry Silverstein stands to collect up to $4.6 billion."
The nine insurers (out of 24) involved in this court case were ordered to
pay double their portion in the total WTC insurance package, $2.2 billion
in all.
The ruling was a reversal of the earlier lawsuit, in which the jury stated that no insurer was exempt from the
single-payment Wilprop form.
"The trial, which ended after 11 days of deliberations, was the first in which jurors were asked to decide whether the terrorist attack that killed 2,749 people could be considered two attacks since two planes hit two separate towers."
The insurers claimed that just like this year's multiple Florida hurricane
hits less than 72 hours apart were dealt as single occurrences, so should
the 9/11 attacks and that the number of weapons used shouldn't determine
the number of occurrences. To counter:
"On behalf of Silverstein, attorney Bernard Nussbaum said there was precedent
in the insurance industry to find the terrorism was two events. A California case concluded that four separate insurance events occurred when an arsonist set four separate fires, including two six minutes apart in courthouses 200 yards apart."
The ruling could raise the maximum insurance payment from all insurers to
a total of $4.6 billion (out of $7 billion originally sought), but even
this victory is still no done deal:
"Silverstein still must go to a three-person appraisal panel to collect
the money. The insurers are also expected to appeal the decision."
The ruling is expected to lead to rising premiums or other tightening
of the policies especially in potential high-risk targets.
Sources: Associated Press, The New York Times, 7 December 2004
18 March 2006:
And appeal they will:
"Insurance companies asked a federal appeals court yesterday to reject a jury
verdict that would enable developer Larry Silverstein to obtain an extra $1.1
billion to rebuild the World Trade Center complex."
That would have amounted to the $4.6 billion mentioned above, but Silverstein's
side is not going to watch idly either -- their scope being on the verdict of
the California arsonist case:
"Silverstein's lawyers also asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
order a new trial so he can try to recover more money from the largest insurers
of the trade center, which was destroyed by terrorists on 9/11.
[...]
"Fighting the verdict in the first trial, Silverstein's lawyer, Herbert
Wachtell, said the developer would have won against more insurance companies if
the jury had been allowed to hear [arsonist case-related] evidence that
was excluded."
All this goes on while the World Trade Center rebuilding is falling even deeper
into a quagmire:
"The collapse of the negotiations, an embarrassment to both Mr. Silverstein and Gov. George E. Pataki, is only the latest problem to cast doubt over the future of the ground zero site. Fund-raising for the World Trade Center memorial is going slowly and critics have questioned whether the $2.3 billion Freedom Tower should be built.
"The dispute between Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority surfaced as state and city officials became concerned about the developer's ability to rebuild the entire site, at an estimated cost of more than $7 billion, when there is only $2.9 billion in insurance money available. Under Mr. Silverstein's lease at the trade center, he has both the right and the obligation to rebuild all the commercial space, at an estimated cost of more than $7 billion."
Sources: New York Post, 8 March 2006 and The New York Times, 18 March
2006
21
8 OCTOBER 2001
Like I've always said: "one day they'll see it with my eyes..."
In fact, after the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent mourning of the WTC,
I wondered whether NYorkers would give other undervalued behemoths
more lenient treatment as a part of their high-rise legacy. Seems that
at least some people in the once-critical communities have reversed
their view.
"In 1963 the Pan Am Building, just north
of Grand Central Terminal,
was to many critics one of the biggest and ugliest things on the
Manhattan skyline. Today, as workers are cleaning and restoring the
white facade of what is now the MetLife Building, there are signs that
a new generation is re-examining that decades-old verdict."
For me the only "proper" (and unabashedly elitistic) way to arrive in
Manhattan has been by helicopter straight to the Pan Am roof helipad;
a vision of a British Airways Chinook or Sea King whisking from JFK,
past ground traffic congestion was one of the first about NYC in my
childhood. The Pan Am was back then in fact the second building that
I got to know from NYC -- after the Empire of course -- and I've thus
never lost my "affection" to it, despite its undeniable shortcomings
(seems like after the 9/11 I'm starting to lose my grip and start a
batch of "confessions")...
"Helicopter service to the roof (discontinued after an accident in
1977) realized a futuristic dream. In a 1966 article in The Architects'
Journal, the architectural historian Reyner Banham said: 'There is no
other way to come into the island city of Manhattan. From now on, it
has to be helicopter or nothing.'"
But indeed, lately several former detractors have started to give the
building more credit:
"Frank Sanchis, executive director of the Municipal Art Society, has
been involved in an unsuccessful effort to get MetLife to retain the
Albers mural, "Manhattan," over the escalators leading to Grand Central.
(The mural has been stored during renovations and MetLife has said it
has no plans to put the mural back because it interferes with light
and open access to the lobby.)
"'You have to put your personal response to it aside,' Mr. Sanchis,
who is 58 and remembers the original dispute, said of the building.
'It involved some major figures, and there are so few buildings that
actually try to integrate art and architecture. But I don't think the
landmarks commission is going to designate it anytime soon.'"
You can say that twice.
"John Jurayj, 32, a painter in Brooklyn, has been involved in
several preservation efforts and is a member of a preservation
organization, the Modern Architecture Working Group of New York City.
Mr. Jurayj, who was not born when the building went up, said he sees
it as "very forward thinking and not antiurban in terms of bringing
people back to the city � it's a very high quality building.
"'It seems that New Yorkers are emotionally connected to what were
originally brutal interventions of our skyline. The loss of the World
Trade Center shows that buildings that we may not think of as great
architecture are important to our sense of ourselves and our city.
Aesthetics are dependent upon the passage of time.'"
Source: The New York Times, 7 October 2001
22
17 OCTOBER 2001
The 1 Liberty Plaza next to the WTC, a
building that was already reported as collapsed on live TV on 9/11
(adding to the feeling of total destruction conveyed through the evening
of channel-hopping) is now due to open -- albeit to a greatly reduced
clientele, strengthened security and an air of gloom (and acrid
smell).
"Among the buildings in the area, 1 Liberty Plaza was unusual because
of the numerous erroneous news reports, including one broadcast on CNN,
that the building had collapsed. In fact, the building also had its own
rumor mill and its own running joke, which made its way up from the
street all the way to the Department of Buildings: 'Oops, Liberty Plaza
just collapsed again.'"
The building has been reported as "structurally sound", but the
hesitation to return doesn't stem from the fear of collapse:
"What scares many of those who will be moving back has nothing to do
with structural integrity. It has to do with the emotion of doing business
in offices practically atop ground zero. The building's lobby was an
emergency triage center on the night of the attacks, and one of its stores
was a makeshift morgue. The building is directly across Church Street from
the trade center's rubble."
As for the owners' thoughts about the future of operations in the
building:
"The building's management company, Brookfield Financial Properties,
is gauging what occupancy will be after the attacks. The chief executive
of Brookfield, Richard B. Clark, said he recognized that 'a number of
firms that had to take temporary space have the latitude to take their
time before coming back.' He added, 'I think it will take a month or so
before people come back in.'"
For the time being the displaced companies are more committed to
staying in their temporary locations or new permanent office spaces,
something that may only change slowly.
"Mr. Mermel [chief executive of TenantWise.com] said he
concluded from his surveys that only 12 percent of tenants who leased
more than 10,000 square feet of space in destroyed or damaged buildings
had committed to returning to Lower Manhattan. That might be because the
logistics of working so close to ground zero present their own set of
challenges."
Source: The New York Times, 17 October 2001
23
25 OCTOBER 2001
The hefty aid package of $54 billion requested from Washington D.C.
to help New York state in the aftermath of the 9/11 is far from
certain and will almost certainly be heavily cut; some of it has
been nevertheless earmarked for the redevelopment of Lower
Manhattan.
"Under the city's proposal, businesses that agree to return to or
set up shop in Lower Manhattan would receive a $5,000 cash bonus for
each employee, and developers would have access to tax-free bonds to
help erect buildings in the area destroyed by the terrorist attack last
month. The city estimates that the cost of reconstructing downtown at
between $8 billion and $15 billion."
At the same time Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles E. Schumer are
drawing from city officials' and businesses' guidelines, proposing an
alternative package -- and one more likely to pass -- of tax
abatements and subsidies for companies returning to Downtown Manhattan
and for developers building there.
(So, while the "heroes" of the city booed Clinton on/offstage during
the MSG charity concert, she is doing her own part in getting the
city back on track. But why let facts come in the way of good
catcalling...)
The scheme would consist of tax abatements based on the number of
workers for the duration of three years, with also the possibility
of subsidizing NYC businesses moving outside Manhattan. The Downtown
support proposal could reach a total of $750 million to refill
approx. 2.3 million m² of new office space.
A variation by Clinton and Schumer would also extend the period of
subsidies and possible not have a pre-determined maximum sum.
"However, city officials hinted that since it was unlikely that two
huge towers would be built in the World Trade Center's space and that
smaller buildings might go there instead, businesses that chose to set
up shop in other boroughs might be accommodated by this plan if lower
Manhattan became overpopulated."
And as for the construction subsidies itself:
"For some developers, who are loath to build in Manhattan because
of high costs and bureaucratic hurdles, the city would like to offer
access to tax-exempt bonds that would significantly reduce their
costs of building. The city envisions developers going to its
Industrial Development Authority to secure bonds on which purchasers
would not be obligated to pay city, state or federal taxes, in turn
lowering the interest rate for the developers.
"City officials argue that the benefit is attractive because
although it would represent a loss of about $13 billion in tax
revenues for the federal government, it would not require a cash
payout to the city. Tax on bond interest was not anticipated revenue
anyway, since there were no plans before Sept. 11 to do major
rebuilding in lower Manhattan."
Source: The New York Times, 24 October 2001
11 Nov:
At least the US Senate Finance Committee has now approved the $5
billion stimulus package for Lower Manhattan, as championed by
Clinton and Schumer. As part of a national aid package, it has to
next pass the vigorous scrutiny of the Senate.
"Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Clinton introduced their proposal late
last month, saying it would spur the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan
by offering $5 billion in tax breaks and other incentives for
businesses."
The package consists of employee-based tax credit for businesses
($2 billion), tax-exempt financing for WTC site reconstruction
($2.5 billion) and tax deductions for replacement of business
equipment not paid for by insurance.
Source: The New York Times, 9 November 2001
7 Feb 2002:
Another $700 million added to the relief package tally from
Washington, this one as a part of the Community Development Block Grant
program, as requested by the state:
"Of the $700 million, $396 million is earmarked for loans and grants
to small businesses. The next largest portion, $250 million, is to
provide incentives for companies to stay in Lower Manhattan or relocate
there."
With the amount of small businesses replaced running in thousands and
with the financial heavyweights relocating and dispersing their
operations to other parts of NYC or to New Jersey, there is a strong
call for financial incentives to revitalize the area.
"Federal housing officials said they expected to approve another
Community Development Block Grant for New York within two months. It
would provide $2 billion for similar purposes."
Even with all the fulfilled and projected incentive packages provided
by Washington, the total provided adds up to $11.2 billion which
still falls short of the $20 billion promised after 9/11.
"Mr. Pataki unveiled a proposal for spending the money in December.
The proposal for use of the $700 million was devised jointly by state
and city officials, with advice from citizens and businesses affected
by the Sept. 11 attack. But they have not reached a consensus on what
to do with the trade center site."
Source: The New York Times, 3 February 2002
9 Mar:
A renewed pledge to provide the financial support for New York from
Washington -- with a $1,5 billion extra:
"To date, the White House and Congress have set aside about $11
billion in emergency aid for New York. The deal outlined today would
provide an additional $5.5 billion in direct federal money, along with
the $5 billion in tax credits and other incentives to keep businesses
from leaving downtown Manhattan."
The makeup of the direct federal rebuilding support:
"The plan includes $2.7 billion in disaster relief for cleanup at the
site paid through the Federal Emergency Management Agency; $1.8 billion
to rebuild the subway and PATH lines that were destroyed in Lower
Manhattan; $750 million to reconstruct Con Edison and Verizon facilities,
a cost that was going to be passed on to customers; and $167 million to
repair roads, like the West Side Highway."
The $5 billion in the tax credit "Liberty Zone" program in the latest
makeup of the aid package has divided the opinions.
"Part of the disagreement stems from the fact that no one ever laid out
specifically how the president's $20 billion commitment would be paid. The
supporters of the tax credit program said that it was as crucial in helping
rebuild New York as direct federal aid is."
"That plan includes 13 additional weeks of unemployment benefits
for people who lost jobs in New York and elsewhere as a result of the
attacks."
Although the administration has now officially approved an enlarged aid
package, it has to pass the Capitol Hill.
"These pieces of the package require approval by Congress, where
lawmakers in both parties have been uneasy about increased spending
when the nation is at war and the economy has weakened. And one
element, the bailout for utilities, requires changing the rules for how
emergency aid can be used."
Source: The New York Times, 8 March 2002
24
4 DECEMBER 2001
Back to the old days when the firefighters were in jeopardy only due to
lousy machinery:
"Forty-two people were injured yesterday when part of a cooling and
ventilation unit exploded in the basement of a downtown office building,
officials said.
"The explosion occurred around 1:20 p.m. at 1 New
York Plaza, officials said, while firefighters were preparing to leave
the building after having extinguished a small blaze that broke out at a
construction site there hours earlier.
"The construction crew had been dismantling a chiller unit that was
part of the building's heating, ventilation and cooling system, officials
said. After that fire had been put out, and firefighters were preparing
to leave, there was a large explosion."
Although the exact cause of the explosion is unknown, it is known that
sparks from a demolition saw was the initial cause. No structural damage
to the building was reported.
"Although contained, the fire continued to burn into last night. That,
said Chief Norman, was a necessary precaution because of the intense heat
from the still-burning [5,000 deg.F] titanium rods that made up
the chiller unit.
Source: The New York Times, 2 December 2001
25
4 FEBRUARY 2002
Seems like these days New Yorkers are calling for a return of
biblical proportions: the indomitable Moses himself: Robert Moses,
the public works überherr in the city in 1934-1968,
the forceful mind behind an array of highway, bridge, park and
construction projects (many of which were blissfully left
unrealized).
"Mr. Moses comes to mind increasingly as New Yorkers look to
the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site and wonder how it
will ever be accomplished, given clashing agendas and a large
and ever- growing cast of characters, not one of them a leader
with the kind of power and authority it will take to bring order
to fragmentation, vision to necessity."
So, a Moses is what's seen as a necessity in that multitude of
committees and bodies involved in the redevelopment of the WTC
site:
"Consider the list so far: Survivors of the victims of Sept.
11; Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg; the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land; Larry
A. Silverstein, who bought control of the trade center complex two
months before the attack and is already planning to rebuild 7 World
Trade Center; the 11 members of the Lower Manhattan Development
Corporation, 7 appointed by Mr. Pataki, among them its chairman,
79- year-old John C. Whitehead, and 4 by former Mayor Rudolph W.
Giuliani; an advisory panel to the development corporation that
includes several state and city politicians; more advisory panels
to be appointed by Mr. Whitehead; neighborhood representatives;
and assorted interested parties from editorial boards to
academicians."
Would there be a place for a Moses in the collective heart of the
city's populace, even after an era that brought a multitude
of personal and political clashes connected to Moses's plans?
(After all, even Giuliani with, at times, similarly brash and
unapologetic methods, redeemed himself in the eyes of the
NYorkers before his departure...) Even though such a choice
could well follow the pattern of Moses's ultra-utilitarian
approach...
"A latter-day Moses could do it � a sensitive Moses, if that
is not a contradiction in terms � with the vision to realize that
there is more at stake than constructing an appropriate memorial
and putting up new buildings. There is the larger task of
reinventing a strategic section of the city."
A sensitive Moses? That indeed seems a contradiction of
the greatest magnitude. So much for an office-dominated development
then... Although when it comes to handling such
large-scale plans that the WTC (and Lower Manhattan) redevelopment
requires, Moses would relish, I doubt that he would much cherish
views and wishes outside his vision.
"Robert Moses in his prime would have pretty much ignored all
those players and done as he wished. Nobody would defend that today.
But more than a few New Yorkers are asking if there is something
halfway between a willful master builder and decision (or
indecision) by committee."
Source: The New York Times, 4 February 2002
26
25 FEBRUARY 2002
Yes, this is another one with Don Trump.
The joint 50-50 ownership of the ex-General
Motors Building on Fifth Avenue is crumbling three years after the
$878 million purchase:
"But the deal started to go sour after [CEO] Mr. Hilbert got
tossed out of Conseco in 2000 when the company nearly collapsed under a
mountain of debt. The new management team wanted cash, lots of it. Conseco
negotiated for more than a year to sell its stake to Mr. Trump for $295
million before the deal finally fell apart."
The disparity of the owners' investments in the building is evident in
the demand that Conseco gave Trump in January:
"Conseco notified Mr. Trump in January that he had until the Ides of
March to buy out the company for $500 million (and take over, or refinance,
a $700 million mortgage), or they would purchase his stake for $15.6
million."
After the office space market collapsed post-9/11, financing of such
magnitude was almost impossible, even though Trump had got before that as
much as $135 a square foot for office space. Trump now accuses Conseco of
delaying the $295 million deal in order to get more money for their
stake. Conseco, on the other hand, had refused to accept the collateral
of Trump's financing through Deutsche Bank already in July 2001.
Both have incentives to go to the courtroom:
"If Mr. Trump wins his legal challenge to Conseco, he figures he will
get the trophy at a discount, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars
in damages. If Conseco wins, its chairman, Gary Wendt, and the insurance
company say they will shed their partner, now unwanted, and gain even
more money to put into a company that is still in desperate need of cash
to pay off debts."
The value of the building has now in any case fallen notably from the
high-rent days:
"Mr. Trump and Conseco put the value of the G.M. Building at about
$1.2 billion, far more than most executives believe it is worth today.
It is a valuable property, they say, but rents are down, not up, and the
Midtown vacancy rate is near double-digits., and more than 40 percent of
the tower is under long-term lease at below-market rents."
Source: The New York Times, 20 February 2002
21 Dec:
The battles for Donald over the building continue, naturally:
the renting of the building's Fifth Avenue plaza for CBS's morning
shows continues to anger the residents in the neighbouring
Sherry-Netherland Hotel:
"The hotel residents are so incensed about what they describe as
the racket and congestion outside the studio, just across 59th
Street, and what they see as CBS's attempt to turn the public plaza
at the General Motors Building into a private stage, that they
reinstated their long-simmering lawsuit against the network,
abandoning efforts to reach a compromise through court-ordered
mediation.
"It is the kind of melee between the haves and the have-mores that
New Yorkers love to watch. But some urban planners say the lawsuit also
raises some important questions about an all-too-common problem: the
private appropriation of what are supposed to be public spaces. It is
all the more intriguing because CBS's landlord at the G.M. Building,
Donald J. Trump, has charged the network rent for a public
space."
The use of supposedly public space (allowing the building developers
to acquire more development rights) for private, commercial purposes
is a large enough problem, even without the neighbours complaining
about noise and disturbance.
"It is like what happens outside the NBC "Today" show studio in
Rockefeller Center, which is private property, or ABC's 'Good
Morning America' studio, which is ringed by sidewalks in Times
Square. The difference, they say, is that CBS has taken over a
public plaza in violation of city laws."
Despite the network's efforts of mediation like offering to re-glaze
the Sherry-Netherland's windows facing the plaza, the residents are
adamant; the city backs CBS although it hasn't, on the other hand,
ever given the required permit for the commercial activities on the
plaza. It follows the pattern found in numerous cases, where the,
in-principal, public space has been
illegally taken over by commercial uses.
"'Each individual violation may not be the biggest deal,' Mr.
Kayden [of Harvard School of Design] said, 'but the
cumulative effect seems to give private owners the sense that they
can privatize public space without a penalty. That's especially
wrong when you think about the financial aspects.'"
For $25 million worth of publicity for the GM products, the studio
deal with CBS was struck and the conversion was rapidly approved by
the city.
"The Sherry-Netherland lawsuit asserts that the Planning Department
approved the permit in an 'uncharacteristically expeditious' two
days. The suit added that CBS had misled the city by asserting that
the indoor studio would have little impact on traffic congestion or
noise levels."
Source: The New York Times, 17 December 2002
9 Sept 2003:
Trump and Conseco may have dished out a healthy sum for the building
six years ago, but a new deal rises the bar by almost half as much:
Harry Macklowe -- who got fame in 1985 as he tore down four buildings
on W 44th without a permit (later building the Hotel Macklowe on the
site) -- has won a bidding for the marble trophy:
"To get it, Mr. Macklowe did have to outfight and outmaneuver more
than two dozen other developers and investors for what is regarded as
one of the best office buildings in the world."
The most notable thing about the transaction was, however, the price:
Macklowe bid a record $1.4 billion (or $800 per sq.ft). A vast sum even
in the company of recent record-breakers, including the ill-fated
$3.25 billion WTC deal:
"The previous records were the $1.05 billion, or $630 a square foot,
that Boston Properties paid to buy Citigroup's headquarters at
399 Park Avenue last year, and the $700
million, or $700 a square foot, that Lehman Brothers paid for 745
Fifth Avenue [Squibb
Building] in 2001."
Many of the bidders offered $1.3 billion, but Macklowe pulled the rabbit
out with his first large-scale transaction in a decade.
" The other bidders included Wells Real Estate Funds of Atlanta;
Jerry Speyer, chairman of Tishman Speyer, which controls Rockefeller
Center; a group headed by the investor Lloyd Goldman; Samuel Zell of
Equity Office Partners; the investor Marvin Davis; Aby Rosen of RFR
Holdings; a billionaire family from Mexico; and investment groups based
in Germany like Paramount and Jamestown."
The number and value of bids are an indication of the desirability of
the building in the NYC office market.
"Although office rental rates are down and vacancies up in New York,
sales of first-class office towers have remained strong. 'This price is
a testament to lower interest rates, a global belief in the Midtown
market and the resilience of trophy buildings in any market cycle,' said
Mary Ann Tighe, of the CB Richard Ellis real estate firm."
What about the ex-owner Trump, who lost the court battle with Conseco
in June (see above)?
"'It's a great building in a great location,' Mr. Trump said
yesterday. 'I did a great job in order to make it a great building.'"
Source: The New York Times, 30 August 2003
21 Sept 2003:
The sale of the GM Building is facing a major barrier in the form of a
lawsuit:
" Sheldon H. Solow, a rival bidder, filed a suit in Chancery Court in
Delaware on Sept. 12, seeking to block the scheduled closing of the sale
to Mr. Macklowe next Friday. Mr. Solow contends that the seller, an entity
controlled by Conseco Inc., rigged the auction to ensure that the building
was sold to Mr. Macklowe."
The lawsuit claims that whereas the Solow bid, which was for the same
amount than the winning Macklowe bid, was submitted before the submission
deadline, the Macklowe one was in fact delivered only after it. The
lawsuit will question the sellers' fairness and conduct in the auction
process.
"'Far from being surprised by Macklowe's arrival after the deadline,'
the suit states, 'defendants' broker knew that Macklowe would be
delivering this untimely bid, and promptly ushered him into the brokers'
office and back out before Defendants' lawyer arrive to open the sealed
bids.
"Mr. Solow's lawyers have acquired a security videotape from the office
building where the bids were delivered to back up his claim, according
to one person who is involved in the lawsuit."
The deal was to be finalized on September 26th, but if the lawsuit is
accepted in a hearing on the 23rd, the transaction will be at the very
least delayed considerably.
" Mr. Solow contends that the unfair process was intended to establish
a market price for the skyscraper in order to permit Mr. Macklowe to
submit a bid that met that number."
Source: The New York Times, 20 September 2003
27
29 MARCH 2002
Donald once more. This time troubled by the Byzantine ownership wrangles
of the Empire State Building, the once-more
tallest in NYC.
"Peter L. Malkin, who leads a partnership that holds the master lease
for the entire building, signed a contract to buy the 102-story tower
for $57.5 million, real estate executives said. The deal is expected to
close in early May, effectively buying out Mr. Trump and his Japanese
partner."
The complex ownership of the building is divided into the building
proper ("title"), the long-term (master) lease of it and an operating
sublease. The holding partnerships of both the long-term lease and
operating sublease have Malkin as an investor.
"With the contract, Mr. Malkin's partnership, known as Empire State
Building Associates, will merge the lease and the title to the
skyscraper for the first time since 1961."
Before the deal the title was held by the Trump Empire State Partners,
led by Donald Trump and the daughter and son-in-law of Hideki Yokoi,
the Japanese businessman who in 1991 gained the ownership of the
building for $42 million. (Yokoi had to make a secret bid through a
middleman due to a prison stint and lost reputation after a fire at
one of his Tokyo hotels had killed 33...) The Empire State Building
Associates' bid was then $32 million.
"It was not a lucrative deal for Mr. Yokoi [...] who brokered
the transaction with Mr. Trump. Mr. Yokoi later accused her
[daughter] of trying to steal the skyscraper from him. [The
tumultous dispute was finally solved in 1999.] Under the terms of
the 1961 lease, Mr. Yokoi's company has been getting only $1.97
million a year in rent, a sum that drops to $1.7 million in
2013."
The operating sublease is currently held by Malkin and the infamous
Leona Helmsley, the widow of one of the original buyers of the building
in 1961, real estate tycoon Harry Helmsley. After trying for four years
unsuccessfully gain the control of the lease in court, Trump Empire
State Partners finally put the building title on sale.
"Last year, the Japanese company and Mr. Trump announced that they
would review offers for the tower. Several companies bid, but Mr.
Malkin's partnership made the highest offer. According to executives,
the Malkin group obtained a mortgage from North Fork Bank."
Although Trump claims to be gaining $15 million, the truth must be a
bit more modest:
"Under the original terms of his partnership, Mr. Trump was to get
half of the sale price above $45 million, which would be $6.25
million."
Sources: The New York Times, 19 March 2002 + The Wall Street Journal,
5 October 2001
11 Apr:
The plot thickens as new characters are introduced:
Now Leona Helmsley and her management partner Irving Schneider are
suing Peter Malkin on the basis that he'd breached ethical
obligations in his supervision of a number of buildings, as
determined by a panel of arbitrators.
"The arbitration ruling a year ago, which is at the base of the
lawsuit, arose from an effort by Mr. Malkin to remove Helmsley-Spear
from managing a number of properties, including the Empire State
Building. The panel barred Mr. Malkin from removing Helmsley-Spear
unless he followed a specific set of procedures."
The lawsuit is not restricted to the Empire:
"Mrs. Helmsley and Irving Schneider, a longtime partner of Mrs.
Helmsley's late husband and an owner of the Helmsley-Spear management
company, also sought in two other lawsuits filed on Tuesday to remove
Mr. Malkin and his law firm from involvement in two garment district
buildings, at 112 West 34th Street and 1333 Broadway."
Schneider already sued Malkin last year to stop his partnership from
gaining the title from the Trump coalition -- a feud in which Helmsley
supported Schneider. Malking is now simultaneously going forward with
the plan to oust Helmsley-Spear from the managing of several buildings,
while at the same time trying to counter the allegations.
The main characters' partnership backgrounds tangle back a long way:
"They are bound together in a series of real estate deals
constructed decades ago by Mrs. Helmsley's husband, Harry B. Helmsley,
and Mr. Malkin's father-in-law, Lawrence Wien, now deceased. Mr.
Schneider was a partner with Mr. Helmsley in many properties and a
top executive at Helmsley-Spear, once the city's largest real
estate company."
...And their feuding history resembles a complete mess:
"Even before Mr. Helmsley died in 1997, Mr. Schneider sued Mrs.
Helmsley over her decision to close most Helmsley-Spear offices
outside New York. Mr. Malkin later sued Mrs. Helmsley and
Helmsley-Spear, alleging mismanagement in dozens of buildings. Mrs.
Helmsley later invoked a truce with Mr. Malkin, while selling
Helmsley-Spear to Mr. Schneider. Now she has rejoined Mr. Schneider
against Mr. Malkin."
Now I've seen it all.
Source: The New York Times, 11 April 2002
7 Oct:
Still troubles for at least Leona:
"Management and leasing for the Lincoln Building
at 60 E. 42nd St., the Fisk Building at 250 W. 57th St., the Toy Building
at 200 Fifth Ave. and 501 Seventh Ave. must be turned over to another firm
in mid-November, a state Supreme Court judge ruled last week."
The voters -- investors in the respective properties -- voted in each
case with over 60 percent majority for the change of management.
"In 1997 Mrs. Helmsley sold the management company to their friend
and partner, Irving Schneider. Investor Peter L. Malkin of Wien & Malkin
- the son-in-law of another late-partner, Lawrence Wien - has been
overseeing capital improvements to the properties and has been trying to
wrest complete control of the portfolio for many years."
The Empire was one building not affected by the decision, so the battle
for its control between Leona and Malkin can continue unabated.
Source: New York Post, 25 September 2002
6 Dec:
Wien & Malkin has proceeded with reshuffling the management and leasing
after Helmsley's appeal over the court ruling was turned down on October
31.
" Management and leasing for the Lincoln Building at 60 E. 42nd St.
will be taken over by Newmark & Co. while Cushman & Wakefield will handle
the Fisk Building at 250 W. 57th St. and the two International Toy Center
buildings at 200 Fifth Ave. and 1107 Broadway.
"Another building at 501 Seventh Ave. is about 50 percent occupied, and
Insignia/ESG will oversee its transition from fashion to office
tenants."
Source: New York Post, 19 November 2002
27 Feb 2006:
Three years on and we have a resolution:
"In a big win for Leona Helmsley, her former company Helmsley-Spear can
continue to act as leasing agents for the Empire State Building and four
other properties, the state's highest court ruled.
"In a decision published yesterday, the Court of Appeals upheld a 2000
arbitration award in favor of Helmsley Spear and said an Appellate Division
court erred when it did not agree with the arbitrators."
Source: New York Post, 23 February 2006
28
16 APRIL 2002
A double feature involving -- who else but -- Trump.
Trump has been forced to continue the selling of his own,
high-ceilinged (6 meters), 1,860 m² duplex atop the
Trump World Tower, after a
substantial offer wasn't forthcoming:
"Cem Uzan [...] a member of the Turkish family that owns
the Telsim telecommunications group, was prepared to pay $38 million
for the penthouse (that price would have topped the most ever paid
for a Manhattan apartment: $37.5 million). Alas, the once high-flying
Uzan defaulted on his contract and lost his $8 million
deposit."
Trump's asking price of $58 million -- more than the abovementioned
$57.5 for the Empire State Building --
has not so far been met...
The NYT article about urban decay "scavengers"
(web site)
in the city ends with a praising note about the brand new building's
condition -- albeit with a gloomy prediction:
""We wanted to see if the Upper East Side was broken," Mr.
Goldsmith said.
"And it was," Mr. Wondrich said, "except for that new Trump U.N.
Tower. We spent 10 minutes looking at it."
"Couldn't find a single thing wrong."
"We were stunned."
"We crawled over every inch of that building."
"Donald Trump, man, he stuck it to us." Mr. Wondrich raised his glass
in salute. "But I guarantee you, if we go back in two years to the
Trump building ��"
"We'll find something broken.""
Source: The New York Times, 13 and 14 April 2002
29
28 JULY 2002
In the lack of other "vignettes" (the debt clock reopening wasn't an
event enough), it's back to the always reliable one:
"The US boasts many real estate tycoons - from New York's Jerry Speyer
to Chicago's Sam Zell to San Francisco's Walter Shorenstein. But there is
only one mogul who has found a way to make money on properties without
building, owning, managing or even investing in them."
I'm sure you already know who it is (and how easy it is to make money
when you have The Touch):
"Donald Trump is not only a prolific developer but he is also a
celebrity endorser, paid to put his name on other people's
buildings."
Such developments profiting (along with Don himself) from the Trump
"brand" include the Florida developers Dezer's condo buildings and
hotels in Miami, like the modestly-named "Trump Grande Ocean Resort
and Residences", and the 41-storey twin luxury towers "Daewoo Trump
World" in Seoul, South Korea. Europe is also a potential target.
"For his name, and his advice, Mr Trump demands a percentage of
the building's profits and sometimes a flat fee. His take can reach
into the 'tens of millions', he said. 'I only put my name on places
that are going to be great (and) we have a lot to do with the design
of the building, the look of it.'"
The luxury draw of the name can have very concrete financial advantages,
and not only for Trump who, for example, gets 45 percent of profits
over the investment payback from the
Trump Place and 50 percent,
depending on the outcome of the operations, for his $6.5 million
investment on the Trump World Tower:
"'The name has brought tremendous value... because it connotes high
quality and great location.' [...] 'He has established that
Trump means luxury and you know what you get,' said Barbara Corcoran,
chairman of one of New York's largest residential real estate agencies.
The cache of Mr Trump's name is quantifiable. In the late 1990s Ms
Corcoran was asked to estimate the value of the
Gulf & Western building, which Mr Trump,
Daniel Galbreath and the GE Pension Trust were negotiating to buy and
recreate as a residential and hotel property.
'I was asked to calculate the sale value with the Trump name and without,
and it landed somewhere close to a 20 per cent difference,' she said.
'There was no way GE could have considered going in with anyone but
Donald.'"
With Trump's namesake buildings all over Midtown, the first one
interestingly almost got a rather more effeminate epithet:
"'I was originally going to call it the Tiffany Tower' for the famous
jewellery store next door, [Trump] said. 'But I asked my friend
"Do you think it should be Trump Tower or Tiffany Tower?" And he said,
"When you change your name to Tiffany, call it Tiffany Tower."'"
With the overseas, Miami, Atlantic City, Gary, Ind. projects, as well
as the planned Trump Tower Chicago, the name has been spread outside
the confines of NYC, where it may even flourish better:
"'Outside New York, the Trump name says luxury and sex appeal,' Ms
Corcoran said. 'In New York, it says flashy, and flashy isn't for
everyone.'"
Source: The London Financial Times, 28 January 2002
30
24 OCTOBER 2002
This is getting boring, but what else can you do when The Man
provides all the best material...
In a brawl which, at least figuratively, pits the penthouse occupant
Conan O'Brien against Donald Trump, the residents in the West 72nd St.
apartment building the Chatsworth are battling to get a change to the
building permit that allows the latest addition to Trump's
Trump Place to be built cheek to
jowl with it.
"If Mr. Trump has his way, his latest condominium tower at Trump
Place will cantilever over the 36-inch strip and block the unobstructed
views of the Hudson from the Chatsworth's 350 or so west-facing windows.
More important, the tenants say, a portion of the 31-story Trump tower
will come as close as three inches from 102 windows of the 12-story
Chatsworth, blocking all light and air from 82 rooms and rendering
them uninhabitable."
In addition to making much of the external fire escape on the wall
unusable, the construction is also feared to affect the foundations of
the Chatsworth, completed in 1904 as a luxury apartment hotel and later
landmarked.
"After years of community opposition and lawsuits, Mr. Trump obtained |