NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich - 2 WTC | 1,226 FT | 55 FLOORS - Page 26

CoolCzech · #**501** Posted **Jan 30, 2009, 1:19 AM**

NYdailynews.com

Pedestals may stand-in for skyscrapers at new World Trade Center

BY DOUG FEIDEN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, January 29th 2009, 4:36 PM
A pair of gigantic space-holding pedestals could appear at Ground Zero as temporary stand-ins for two of the site's long-planned signature skyscrapers, officials disclosed Thursday.

The broad-shouldered pedestals - facing each other along Church Street - could possibly house world-class retail shops if officials delayed additional construction during the economic downturn.

Each could be engineered to permit later construction of the immense towers planned by World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein for the 16-acre site.

"The last thing the Port Authority will do is to leave holes and pits in the ground in downtown," said Chris Ward, executive director of the Port Authority.

"To do that, we will either build pedestals which will allow some form of retail options and permit long-term subsequent construction."

The pedestals are essentially handsome and ultra-expensive stumps for the future buildings. They could serve as a stop-gap measure until the hobbled economy recovers and private construction financing becomes available again for the twin mega-projects.

At stake is the future of two Silverstein buildings: Tower 2, slated to be taller than the Empire State Building, and Tower 3, another iconic design expected to reshape the downtown skyline.

Foundation work for Tower 4, the future corporate home of the Port Authority and possibly some city agencies, would not be affected.

The possible new approach _ referred to by officials variously as a pod, a podium, a pedestal or a stump _ surfaced after a public hearing on Lower Manhattan redevelopment.

Ward revealed the possibility during a meeting with reporters after testifying. It was unclear how tall the twin pedestals might stand, and what type of retailers they might attract.

Ward noted that the nearby Sept. 11 memorial is expected to draw 5 million annual visitors, making the site retail-friendly.
Silverstein - asked by the Daily News about Ward's comments - suggested building retail separately and then raising the towers would not work.

"It's almost impossible to get quality retail down below while you're building massive towers up above," he noted, broaching the question of stores operating at the bottom of a construction site.

NYguy · #**502** Posted **Jan 30, 2009, 3:29 AM**

Quote:

A pair of gigantic space-holding pedestals could appear at Ground Zero as temporary stand-ins for two of the site's long-planned signature skyscrapers, officials disclosed Thursday.

The broad-shouldered pedestals - facing each other along Church Street - could possibly house world-class retail shops if officials delayed additional construction during the economic downturn.

Silverstein - asked by the Daily News about Ward's comments - suggested building retail separately and then raising the towers would not work.

"It's almost impossible to get quality retail down below while you're building massive towers up above," he noted, broaching the question of stores operating at the bottom of a construction site.

Silverstein is obviously not a fan of the idea, nor has been the city since the idea first popped up a few years ago.

ltsmotorsport · #**503** Posted **Mar 3, 2009, 2:49 AM**

Wow, that's really sad to hear, especially since WTC2 in the best looking tower, IMO.

NYguy · #**504** Posted **Mar 3, 2009, 12:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Wow, that's really sad to hear, especially since WTC2 in the best looking tower, IMO.

It would only be sad if the towers didn't get built. We're a year or two away from that possibility. Right now, they've just got to get into the ground and start building.

CHAPINM1 · #**505** Posted **Mar 3, 2009, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

It would only be sad if the towers didn't get built. We're a year or two away from that possibility. Right now, they've just got to get into the ground and start building.

Just because they wouldn't get built now doesn't mean they wouldn't ever get built. People seem to think that recessions last forever, THEY DON'T. If they are put on hold, what would be cool is if these towers were built taller than planned due to a demand when the economy eventually turns around... However; I'd still be happier if they were built on schedule. We just have to continue to be patient.

scalziand · #**506** Posted **Mar 4, 2009, 12:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

Just because they wouldn't get built now doesn't mean they wouldn't ever get built. People seem to think that recessions last forever, THEY DON'T. If they are put on hold, what would be cool is if these towers were built taller than planned due to a demand when the economy eventually turns around... However; I'd still be happier if they were built on schedule. We just have to continue to be patient.

Actually, I think that is what is going to happen for wtc5.

NYguy · #**507** Posted **Mar 4, 2009, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHAPINM1

Just because they wouldn't get built now doesn't mean they wouldn't ever get built. People seem to think that recessions last forever, THEY DON'T. If they are put on hold, what would be cool is if these towers were built taller than planned due to a demand when the economy eventually turns around... However; I'd still be happier if they were built on schedule. We just have to continue to be patient.

Keeping in mind it would be a couple of years before the actual base of these towers got completed anyway, I don't think we should worry at this point. Stern also mentioned last week that Silverstein had in fact began work on Tower 2 foundation as well. If financing isn't complete by the time these hulking bases are rising above the street, I'd be concerned about a delay.

samoen313 · #**508** Posted **Mar 4, 2009, 4:08 AM**

Hmm. I have to agree with Silverstein very much. Even if they finished the bases and just installed the retail, it would take even longer to build these things when they have to tip-toe around retailers. In particular, if they want more upscale retailers and eateries, they're going to be hard-pressed to find a set of tenants that will put up with two or so years of tarps, scaffolding, and exposed wires. Even if they could get a few retailers in there for a limited amount of time, they won't find many that will sign for less than a three-year lease.

NYguy, you would probably know how long before 2/3 get to street level? I know it will take awhile. But are we talking another 18 months? 2 years? The longer it takes them, the better chance they have to get these ready to go truly vertical in a more conducive economic climate.

If they can't build them right off, couldn't they do something like turn them into temporary parks/plazas? Between all the battalions of tourists and pushy business-folk, I doubt those things would be empty in the heat of the day. And why not use the space for something innovative and temporary? They could get a real A-list competition going for an interactive, architecture installation. If the land still has to generate some revenue to pay for itself, I'd imagine there has got to be some agreement that could be worked with the city regarding a tax reprieve or temporary lease. That way, when things really are ready to start again, they could dismantle whatever is on the site and start staging again without stepping around contract tenants.

I know that's a bit pie-in-the-sky and there are too many money/ownership issues at odds, I feel they could do a number of more useful things on the site that wouldn't be as fussy as podium/retail construction that could be far more temporary and equally beneficial for the scheme if there is a delay.

NYguy · #**509** Posted **Mar 4, 2009, 12:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by samoen313

NYguy, you would probably know how long before 2/3 get to street level? I know it will take awhile. But are we talking another 18 months? 2 years? The longer it takes them, the better chance they have to get these ready to go truly vertical in a more conducive economic climate.

I don't know it right off the top of my head, but there is a timeline for it. I'll have to check.

Quote:

If they can't build them right off, couldn't they do something like turn them into temporary parks/plazas? Between all the battalions of tourists and pushy business-folk, I doubt those things would be empty in the heat of the day.

I don't think plazas are the way to go either. The memorial itself is more park-like in appearance. And remember that all of the towers will be connected undergound - with Calatrava's transit terminal sitting between towers 2 and 3. So that needs to be built as planned.

Zerton · #**510** Posted **Mar 5, 2009, 1:32 AM**

I could see this coming. But I always thought the funding was set due to insurance, gov't funding, etc.

NYguy · #**511** Posted **Mar 5, 2009, 1:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zerton

I could see this coming. But I always thought the funding was set due to insurance, gov't funding, etc.

Government funding was mostly for infrastructure, transit. Silverstein got about half of the insurance proceeds he was expecting, so he will need additional financing to complete the towers. For now though, the work goes on.

uaarkson · #**512** Posted **Mar 5, 2009, 2:13 AM**

If I were silverstein I'd just continue building until I had no more money, and when people saw half-completed towers at ground zero they might be more inclined to donate.

NYguy · #**513** Posted **Mar 5, 2009, 2:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson

If I were silverstein I'd just continue building until I had no more money, and when people saw half-completed towers at ground zero they might be more inclined to donate.

That's pretty much what the plan is now, though he will stop at the base if there isn't financing at that point to proceed further.