Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:58:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis Epstein
Subject: WTC Rebuilding #177:Silverstein Denounces Building Tall,
    Finalist Rumors Swirl,Short-Notice Holl Conference


After announcing a Java-chat with Charles Gwathmey for today on
Wednesday and cancelling it yesterday,Gotham Gazette announced one
with his "picket fence" colleague Steven Holl this morning and it
took place this afternoon.I hada  question,they asked me to reword
it,I did but they never asked it and let Holl go early.He began his
presentation by saying that "building the world's tallest building
was an inappropriate response to the gravity of the situation" so
we knew we would not get satisfaction from him...he wanted to
rhapsodize about the "Memorial Square" public spaces and complained
that too much attention was being paid to the vertical components
that might never get built.

Not a problem,then,that his group's 1111-foot concept seems to have
little chance,though a version with fewer,taller shafts is better
than a number of alternatives.

The rumors of the Libeskind plan (shard-like buildings with
a greenhouse topped by an ornamental 1776-foot spire) and
the THINK World Cultural Center (the abstract sculptures
stuck in a pair of gigantic springs) being certain finalists
despite the decision not formally being made until Monday
continue to intensify...so much so that the New York Post has
a new poll at http://www.nypost.com/poll/nyp1.htm asking people
to choose just between those.They have restarted the message board
at http://www.webforums.com/forums/f-read/msa154.69.html for
people to comment.

Gotham Gazette finally allowed me to start a new topic on the
issue of these being the finalists.

Daniel Libeskind IS apparently open to the idea of making his
buildings taller,thank goodness,according to some responses
from him (or his secretary thierry?) reported on the NYCS board.
We need to continue to send polite nudges in this direction to
him at info@daniel-libeskind.com regardless of what we think of
his plan as a whole.He is prepared to have 125 stories,he says.

Unfortunately,Larry Silverstein has come out against building
over 70 stories,as the following articles reveal:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:14:39 -0500
From: Save The WTC <savethewtc@hotmail.com>
Subject: Silverstein Blasts WTC Plans!


Article-

http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=27599

Silverstein Blasts WTC Plans, Outlining His Own Vision For Site

JANUARY 31ST, 2003

Only days before the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation is to reveal
its choice for the World Trade Center redevelopment plan, the man who holds
the lease on the WTC site is lashing out at the eight architectural
proposals, while vowing to rebuild the site with just as much office space
as before.

In a letter obtained by NY1 News Friday, Larry Silverstein blasts the eight
designs proposed for the Trade Center site and currently under consideration
by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.

Unlike some of the design proposals, which combine office space with
numerous public spaces, Silverstein is calling for all of the destroyed
office space to be rebuilt ^Ö if not more.

"It is imperative for the economic health of the city and the region that
the office space destroyed on September 11 be replaced," the letter says.

The LMDC solicited nine design proposals from top architects over the
summer, and is expected to announce next week which design will be the basis
for the rebuilding of the site.

However, in his letter Silverstein asserts his right to have his own
architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill "work with any architects
selected by the Port Authority and the LMDC over the coming weeks."

The Skidmore firm originally had a proposal among the ones being considered
by the LMDC, but withdrew it to represent Silverstein directly.

In response to Silverstein's letter, the LMDC issued a statement late Friday
saying: "We respect Larry Silverstein's opinion, along with the views of so
many who have an interest in the future of the World Trade Center site -
including the public. Each team took great care to develop concepts that are
both inspiring and feasible. We're confident a plan will emerge from this
process that will provide an inspiring setting for a memorial while serving
as a catalyst for the revitalization of Lower Manhattan."

In his letter, Silverstein stresses that he is prepared to consider "input
and reasonable concurrence" from all parties. However, he contends that none
of the eight plans under consideration "presents a viable and safe vision
for the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site."

The letter outlines numerous criteria that Silverstein says should be
followed to rebuild the site "in a manner that creates a safe environment
and that meets the demands of tenants." Among them, Silverstein says the new
buildings should house 10 million square feet of office space and 600,000
square feet of retail space, and be limited to 70 stories in height for
safety's sake.

The letter was sent to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Governor
George Pataki and New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, Mayor Michael Bloomberg
and the Port Authority.

And Here's the Full Text Letter Silverstein Sent:

Full Text Of WTC Letter Sent To LMDC By Larry Silverstein

Dear Chairman Whitehead,

As the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation proceeds with the next step
in fulfilling its role in the planning for the World Trade Center site, I
thought that it would be helpful to share the views of the Silverstein
lessees on where the planning process should go from here and our thoughts
on the plans submitted to LMDC by its selected architect teams.

I want to emphasize at the outset that we have always worked, and will
continue to work, in a constructive and cooperative fashion with the Port
Authority, the LMDC, the City and other interested parties to develop a plan
that will enhance the economic vitality of the nation's third largest
business district, improve the quality of life in Lower Manhattan and
memorialize the tragic events of September 11. We are fully cognizant of the
intense public interest in, and symbolism of the World Trade Center site. We
are also fully cognizant of the lessons to be learned from September 11,
lessons that we have incorporated in the new 7 World Trade Center. There is
a critical need to assure that new high rise buildings are safe for their
occupants, and to assure that emergency evacuations can be accomplished in a
fast, safe and secure manner. Our architectural, engineering and security
advisors all counsel us that in order to protect building occupants and
provide them with fast evacuation times, it is not practical to build
super-tall office buildings in the post-9/11 world; evacuation times
increase disproportionately as building height increases. Moreover, fighting
a fire in a super-tall building is more complicated because of the increased
time it takes to reach higher floors.

We have sought to work in a cooperative spirit and have resolved to see the
site rebuilt; as a City and a nation, we cannot permit terrorists to destroy
this City's economy and way of life. Before September 11, the 10 million
square feet of office space and 450,000 square feet of retail space located
at the World Trade Center were an integral part of the fabric of lower
Manhattan. The office space was 97% occupied, and the retail space was among
the most valuable in the nation. Before 9/11, it was widely recognized by
farsighted political and civic leaders that New York needed more, not less,
office development. A report published in June 2001 by the Group of 35 Task
Force concluded that New York would need 60 million square feet of new
office space by 2020 to accommodate the anticipated addition of up to
300,000 new jobs. The loss of a total of 16 million square feet of office
space as a result of the September 11 attacks only heightens the need for
new office space to accommodate job growth. Indeed, the LMDC's own study
concluded that we should be planning for the construction of 18 million
square feet of new office buildings in lower Manhattan to accommodate job
growth.

Unless one is prepared to conceded that New York's heyday has
passed--something that we cannot do--it is imperative for the economic
health of the City and the region that the office space destroyed on
September 11 be replaced. We believe that this rebuilding can be
-accomplished in a manner that establishes new and higher building safety
standards, that is consistent with the best principles of urban planning and
that accommodates the imperatives that the site include a significant and
dignified memorial, improved public transportation facilities and new public
amenities. We have also always made clear though our words and, more
importantly, our deeds that we will be flexible in accommodating the needs
of the City, State and region.

Against this backdrop, let me share our thoughts on the conceptual plans
that have been submitted. From our perspective the following criteria should
be adhered to in order to assure that we rebuild in a manner that creates a
safe environment and that meets the demands of tenants:


Re-establish urban streets through the site, especially Greenwich Street and
at least one east-west street (Fulton Street);

Create a major and visible transportation facility, with prominence and
dignity, sited to work with subsequent development;

Assure that the buildings are designed and constructed to protect their
occupants and assure safe, fast and efficient egress. This requirement in
all probability will limit the occupied portion of any building to no more
than 65 to 70 stories (900 to 1000 feet) in total height.

Respect the lessees' obligation to rebuild the 10 million square feet of
office space and a total of 600,000 square feet of retail space;

Require all buildings to meet street grade, with active cultural and retail
frontages;

Provide for buildings of various sizes, but no larger than 2.5 million
square feet, that tenants will feel safe in occupying. This means that
buildings must:

- incorporate workable vertical circulation using conventional elevator
systems, enhanced as required for life safety considerations;

- incorporate building entrances that are large enough for security
screening;

- provide reasonably regular, repetitive floors with floor plates averaging
40,000 square feet (with a 35,000 square foot minimum and a 45,000 square
foot maximum);

- allow office floor-to-floor heights of approximately 13'-6";

- incorporate typical office lease spans of 45 feet, but no less than, and
infrequently, 30 feet; and

- use practical and proven structural systems and enhance those systems with
the best technology and practices available to assure occupant safety.


Allow for market-responsive phasing, with increments of approximately 2
million square feet every year over a period of five years, but provide
flexibility to permit the pan to allow for longer implementation if market
demands change.

Meet heightened environmental and sustainable design standards.

As you know, many of the criteria outlined above were established in the
guidelines put forth by the LMDC. And to be sure, the talented design teams
selected by LMDC have cogently demonstrated the ability of architecture to
elevate our spirits and evoke the vision for the future that will assure
that lower Manhattan thrives. However, none of the plans as currently
configured presents a viable and safe vision for the redevelopment of the
World Trade Center site in a manner that satisfies all of the criteria
developed by LMDC or all of the criteria that are necessary to assure that
the rebuilt World Trade Center is not only architecturally distinguished but
secure for tenants and responsive to their needs.

As Alex Garvin noted in a "Times" interview, all of the schemes have to be
"adjusted to reality." The question then is, where do we go from here? In
considering this question, we must all be cognizant of the market, financial
and legal constraints that face us. The Port Authority estimated that our
consortium paid $3.2 billion in consideration for our leaseholds, consisting
of $600 million to the Port Authority at the closing and a commitment to pay
many billions more in rent over the term of the 99-year leases. The leases
obligate us to continue to pay that rent (currently $120 million per year)
notwithstanding the destruction of the complex and give us the corresponding
obligation and right to rebuild what was lost. The leases expressly
contemplate that in the event the complex was destroyed and it is not
feasible, prudent or commercially reasonable to rebuild in accordance with
the plans and specifications as they existed, we have the right to build
substitute buildings. The leases further provide, consistent with the
obligation of good faith implicit in every contract, that while the Port
Authority would have to consent to an alternate rebuilding plan, the Port
Authority cannot unreasonably withhold its consent. Moreover, our Reciprocal
Easement and Operating Agreement with the Port Authority provides that our
group has the right to select the architect responsible for preparing
rebuilding plans.

We have faithfully continued since 9/11 to make rental payments on the
premise that our contract rights will be honored; and, having done so, we
have every reason to expect that the Port Authority will respect its
obligation and that other governmental bodies will not seek to interfere
with or undercut our rights or constrain us in our effort to build safe and
desirable buildings. Consistent with our lease obligations, we are committed
to dedicating the proceeds of our insurance recovery--a recovery that will
total $6.7 billion plus prejudgment interest--to rebuilding and satisfying
all our other contractual obligations. This insurance recovery represents
the only private source of funds for redevelopment. The only way to assure
that this entire recovery is obtained is to rebuild the full amount of
destroyed space; building less would result only in a major windfall to the
insurers. By working together, we can assure that the region will obtain the
benefits that the investment of these billions will bring to lower
Manhattan. that redevelopment of the site will speed ahead, that tens of
thousands of jobs will be brought back to lower Manhattan, and that the
economy of the City and the region will be enhanced.

We must also keep in mind that it is important to move forward with
deliberate speed. Once a land use plan is finalized, it will take the
balance of year 2003 to develop architectural and engineering plans for the
transportation hub and other subgrade structures. As a result, construction
of the new transportation hub and subgrade cannot being in earnest until the
beginning of 2004. Construction itself will take 2 1/2 to 3 years, with
completion in late 2006 or 2007. Until this is completed and the site is
brought back to grade, construction of a memorial cannot begin. On this
schedule, the first office towers would open in the second half of 2008 or
2009, with additional buildings opening each year thereafter. The entire
project could be substantially completed in 2012, at a time when there will
be utter demand for new office space in lower Manhattan.

We fully recognize that the Port Authority is a governmental entity that is
subjected to conflicting pressures--pressures different from those imposed
upon a private landlord. We also recognize that LMDC has a unique role in
the planning for lower Manhattan. And we certainly do not maintain that our
group has the unfettered right to build whatever we desire without input and
reasonable concurrence from the Port Authority and collaboration LMDC. But
we must find a way to make sure that all responsible parties come to
agreement on a plan that will be architecturally spectacular, will meet the
demands of the tenants that we must bring back to lower Manhattan and, most
importantly, will assure the safety of the occupants of the buildings and
assure them a fast, safe and efficient egress in the event of an emergency.

As you know, we have engaged Skidmore, Owings & Merrill to work with us on
a site plan. We understand that LMDC shortly will select one or more
architects to work with it in developing a plan over the coming weeks; and
the Port, of course, has its own extraordinarily qualified architects and
planners. We have been and remain fully amenable to having SOM work with any
architects selected by the Port Authority and LMDC over the coming weeks.

With this in mind, please let me suggest that whichever architects that LMDC
selects to work on the development of a site plan be tasked with
coordinating their efforts with SOM as well as, of course, with architects
representing the Port Authority. Let me also suggest that we all recognize
now that any plan that results from our joint efforts over the next several
weeks will have to be adapted as time goes on to accommodate the changing
needs of our City.

We all have a responsibility to make lower Manhattan a better place to work,
live and visit. I look forward to hearing from you and your colleagues to
plan how we can move forward together to fulfill this responsibility.

Sincerely,
Larry Silverstein

Newsday also ran article called:

Silverstein: Scrap The WTC plans

The link to that can be found here:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtc0201,0,4648398.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines

---------- End forwarded message ----------

_________________________________________________________________

It seems that he has been listening too closely to the Sally Regenhard
types....and not paying attention to Eli Attia's engineering principle
that taller buildings ARE SAFER than shorter ones.

He pays no attention to the idea of a fire station being located,
equipped,and staffed on a high floor (probably because it would pay
him no rent) thus drastically cutting the amount of time it would
take personnel to get to a fire.

Please note that there is substantial material we can agree with in
this letter,and we should highlight this in correspondence with him...
there IS a need for a lot of office space down there.A number of the
engineering improvements he refers to make good sense.

However,his refusal to consider buildings of more than 2.5 million
square feet will frankly make his buildings LESS safe,and his view
that "it is not practical to build super-tall office buildings in
the post-9/11 world" is in direct contradiction to his assertion
that he is not "prepared to concede that New York's heyday has passed".
A city that no longer builds as tall as it once did,IS a city
whose heyday has passed,the symbolic language is clear no matter
how one may attempt to blind oneself to it.

The principle of building in response to market demand is in
direct contradiction to the boldness entirely responsible for
buildings achieving greatness.A building can only become an icon
if it is "too big to make business sense"...otherwise it will be
something everybody with the money will be doing.

Where he thinks it is a bad investment to build higher,
public financing by whatever means should be offered to
increase the height of the buildings."Tower Bonds",appropriations,
charitable appeals...where no expense should be spared yet he
refuses to expend,there should be a way of making up the shortfall.
History CAN NOT record that we hid behind a developer's short-term
predictions in responding to a symbolic humiliation of the free
world.

If he wants the lower 70 stories,someone who builds 70 more
on top of them will in the long run make more money!

_________________________________________________________________


A side note...not all drinkers of alcohol are alcoholics...not all
admirers of the Yamasaki WTC design are Yamasaki-holics.I coined the
latter word to refer to those so specifically obsessed with the "down
to the last [whatever]" rebuilding of what was there before that they
could not accept or advocate any other tall tower for the site,not to
those who would simply PREFER that the new Towers be similar to the
old.

Meanwhile,there's a news story that the Shanghai World Financial
Center is to resume construction,on hold for some time,with the goal
of being the world's tallest...exact specifications will be announced
on February 13th at a ribbon-cutting ceremony.Probably they can't bear
to see the Taipei Financial Center (1470 feet to roof and 1667 feet to
spire) take the crown next year and hold it.

Let's bring that title back to New York!

There are TWO DAYS LEFT to send your comments on design
and the need for occupied height no shorter than before
to the lmdc@empire.state.ny.us address.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.