NEW YORK | 200 Greenwich St (2WTC) | 1,348 FT | 88 FLOORS | ON HOLD


#1208

As you suggested, it’s ultimately Patrick Foye’s fault that 1 WTC was butchered. He could have vetoed Durst’s terrible and shortsighted proposals but instead approved them like Durst’s little lap dog.
And long after he’s dead the city will still be stuck with this awful antenna on the roof of what was supposed to be a display of New York’s resolve and its tribute to those lost. Meanwhile, the complex should be seen as a symbol of greed, corruption, mismanagement, and the worst of American politics.
The architecture never matched the likes of the Pudong cluster to begin with, and now it’s but a shadow of what it was intended to be.


#1209

Delete


#1210

There are only so many companies in New York with the size to anchor a future 2 WTC. Then filter that list looking for companies that haven’t moved recently and whose current location puts them under the onus of a greedy landlord. The below is just a thought exercise, back of the envelope sort of thing.

The large investment banks have moved to midtown so they’re out.

The HR consulting firm Mercer is one possibility. I can’t think of another consulting firm with sufficient size.

There are some large tech companies with headquarters in Manhattan but most seem firmly ensconced in their present locations. CA Technologies is the only exception in tech I can think of.

Pfizer is moving to Hudson Yards so they’re out.

Interpublic Group moved its headquarters only three years ago so they’re out.

Viacom is another large media company like Fox that was previously looking for a new home. They were considering WTC at one point but ultimately opted to stay in Times Square.

Amazon is of course a possibility. The sheer number of buildings they occupy across Seattle is incredible.

There are many other companies to consider but I’ll stop here for now. This exercise though does make me realize just how small the number of potential anchors is when you apply the right filters.


#1211

To Robert’s point there is also ALOT of space unspoken for in the buildings going vertical already. Over 1 million sf available in each 50 HY and the Spiral and 700K+ in 1 Vanderbilt (even with the leases announced today).

Morgan Stanley may consolidate somewhere new but they were in WTC2 on 9/11 and imho are not likely to even consider downtown again, let alone the same address. More likely for them to take MW2 or even 15 Penn Plaza if they move at all.


#1212

While the future of 2 WTC remains TBD, I believe the existing foundation work should be put to good use in the interim. I’m familiar with a proposal earlier this year from an organization called Lab North for a garden facility to be built atop the “roof” of the foundation. That got me thinking about other possible temporary installations - an elevated green space with easy pedestrian access could “mirror” the elevated green walkway adjacent to St. Nicholas.


#1213

looks like another 200k+ sf tenant will land at Hudson Yards. What is Larry demanding? Whatever it is, it’s not attracting any big tenants.


#1214

Probably way too much than whatever is reasonable for this building to be built. Greedy clod.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get. Keeping such an important and symbolic site unfinished just for sheer greed.
What a tit


#1215

Delete


#1216

I think that’s an unfair statement…
we have no idea what the prices are but the other wtc towers are all priced competitively low.
Also, this building will cost more than twice as much as a comparable project outside the World Trade Center zone so it’s not necessarily greedy to ask for more money to build it.


#1217

well why would it cost twice as much for comparable class of office space in midtown or Hudson Yards?


#1218

Because they have to deal with nightmarish government agencies like the port authority who do everything they can to cause problems…
In addition to this Hudson yards is being built using sketchy non union labor that’s not permitted at all on the WTC site


#1219

not sure about the “sketchy non union labor” statement, sounds like a political talking point to me so I’ll let that go

but, I am curious, how did port authority cause this to double in price compared to the same office space in midtown (which was always double the price of downtown)


#1220

wow, I can’t image that soon to be 2019 but 2 wtc that say completed 2022 it doesn’t make sense because I feel that they took to long and how sad. To me I thinking the new WTC only 1, 3, 4 and 7 not really 2, 5, and 6 smh!


#1221

this would have been enough to anchor 2 wtc. Le sigh.

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-estate/debevoise-plimpton-heads-50-hudson-yards

Debevoise & Plimpton is the latest large office tenant to land in Hudson Yards.

The law firm is close to signing a deal to move its current office on Third Avenue into around 450,000 square feet at 50 Hudson Yards, a 985-foot-tall office tower rising in the West Side neighborhood, several sources familiar with the negotiations said.


#1222

Silverstein May Start Building Final WTC Tower Without Signed Tenant

Silverstein Properties Inc., the developer that rebuilt lower Manhattan after the destruction of the twin towers in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, may begin work on its final World Trade Center skyscraper before signing a lease for the building.

The firm might build 2 World Trade Center “on spec,” or without a committed tenant, Chairman Larry Silverstein said in an interview. The building’s foundation was started, with no further work done because the developer hadn’t found a company to anchor the space. But a strong economy and leasing progress at neighboring towers may change those plans, he said.

“I think we’re in an increasingly good spot, in a good position, to do that,” said the 87-year-old developer, who founded Silverstein Properties in 1957. “For all intents and purposes, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to start on Tower 2 because it won’t be finished until about 2022, 2023.”

The 2.8 million-square-foot (260,000-square-meter) office building, designed by Bjarke Ingels Group, will be the last of Silverstein’s four skyscrapers at the downtown site. It marks the culmination of the Financial District redevelopment undertaken by Silverstein, who also built towers 3, 4 and 7. The final skyscraper is slated to be about 80 stories and feature floor-to-ceiling glass windows, basketball courts, a running track and rooftop parks, with renderings showing a cascading, staircase-like silhouette for the building.

“It’s a riskier strategy to start without the anchor tenant lined up, but it just speaks to the optimism in the marketplace,” said Jeffrey Langbaum, a real estate analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence.

Finding a primary tenant for 2 World Trade Center has proven challenging, with competition from the new Hudson Yards development on the west side and hesitance among some firms to move all the way downtown. Citigroup Inc. had considered moving to the tower, but in 2013 opted to stay in Tribeca. Two years later, Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox Inc. and News Corp. reached a tentative agreement to lease space in the building before decidinginstead to stay put in midtown Manhattan.

Still, Silverstein has managed to attract high-profile tenants to the World Trade Center buildings, including Moody’s Corp. and Spotify Technology SA. In June, the developer opened 3 World Trade Center, which is now more than 50 percent leased.


#1223

Awesome!!


#1224

I’m wondering if this could theoretically lead to the Foster design rising, because the “foundation” is already in place and “on spec”?


#1225

His company is doing better by the day, but sadly he is also getting older. Get it done, Larry! Tower 2 would cement his legacy as one of NYC’s great builders.


#1226

I like both designs. I just want this to be rising by the twentieth anniversary of 9/11.


#1227

As long as it’s Fosters.
I’d rather have nothing rise than a terrible blight on the skyline.

If built on spec you’d to believe that he’d go with Fosters, for several reasons:

  1. The switch to BIG’s design will take an enormous amount of headache and cost, and why bother with it if it’s not for a specific tenant?
  2. The Foster design was incorporated into the master plan, whereas BIG’s is not (and likely was stolen from a 5 year old kid playing with LEGO’s)
  3. The floor plates of Fosters will probably be more appealing to future prospective tenants than BIG’s collapsing pile of dog turds.