Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
After months of discussions, Merrill Lynch has ended talks about moving its headquarters to one of the planned towers at the World Trade Center Site. The NY Times describes this as a "major setback for the Port Authority" and Silverstein Properties.
Apparently "Concerns about stirring memories of 9/11 and the long-term noise and construction at the site" have been factors in the lack of strong interest in the site from companies. And developer Larry Silverstein may have trouble raising money for the building of Towers 2, 3, and 4--there are talks of other firms moving to Ground Zero, but they are not firm.
Rebuilding at the WTC site has already been confirmed as delayed and well over-budget by the Port Authority. And last fall, it was suggested Merrill Lynch, which has had billions in write-downs, would move to Midtown in a building to be built where the Hotel Pennsylvania now stands but the Times says the firm is renegotiating its lease at the World Financial Center.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I cant say I blame the Company they are in trouble themselves and nothing has been built yet so why would any one want to commit to some thing that has produced cost over runs and delays.
^
Exactly.
I said it before and I'll say it again: Mega towers are built out of pride, but make little economic sense. The article pointed out the other towers have NO commercial tenants lined up and ready to sign the lease.
".....Mega towers are built out of pride, but make little economic sense."
That's not entirely the case although pride does have a lot to do with it. The old WTC itself had a massive amount of office space for the tower's size. It took time but in the end little, if any space was vacant. It always takes time to get tenants for large office buildings, especially since its impossible to predict when the next downturn is when designing and building them. In the long run they will be profitable, just not in the short term.
Strange, the Twin Towers owners made out like bandits on the insurance. Probably worth more destroyed than not....sorry. Just..ahem.."ironic".
idiotic to build these arrogant towers.
do something tasteful.
Yes, it takes a lot of time and money to build supertowers and then a lot of time to make them profitable. That's why established world-class cities don't build them. The Sears Tower and The WTC were projects from the early 1970's. London, Paris, Berlin and Tokyo don't have them. But, Dubai will.
^London has several very large towers in the works. A developer in Tokyo has plans to build ever larger, taller towers. Paris had a supertall proposal that failed because of an economic downturn in the '90s. Berlin has a very conservative planning department that won't approve any project not in keeping with the traditional street layout.
This setback is meaningless because work has not started on any but the one tower and all the Port Authority has been saying lately is that there will be delays. That doesn't help them sign leases, especially for a financial house. They just need to get on with building and, like Larry Silverstein, sign those leases when their towers are finished.
Are the European "large towers" you speak of over 100 stories? Or 90?
If Silverstein builds it, they might not come. The WTC was a white elephant until the Port Authority got NY state agencies to occupy a lot of space.
Nope, none of the proposed towers in Europe (except a couple in Moscow) have that many floors, but they all are over 1,000 ft high. which is around the same height as the WTC lot.
And you get no argument from me on the viability of this ensemble of white elephants.