Any hint that the creation of the Freedom Tower is (and maybe not even was) a collaboration was effectively erased by a holiday weekend report that Daniel Libeskind’s office had submitted a bill to Larry Silverstein for $800,000 for continuing design work after the his site plan ($2.25 million in fees) was completed. Silverstein countered with an offer of $125,000. Though the Libeskinds are unwilling to submit to arbitration (in the Post, the world ‘sue’ is bandied about pretty liberally), they do seem to be willing to use the Times as a non-binding agent, hinting they would be happy with $600,000. Silverstein is balking at the lack of adequate documentation, namely any timesheets whatsover, to which Libeskind’s office is responding by saying the value of his meeting time is hard to quantify (read: ‘I was busy buying my dowtown loft’). The Post cuts to the chase and calls it a ‘genuis fee,’ which is a more explicit derivative of how the branding people justify a cost of a logo as ‘value priced.’ Though this might be seen as chink in the formidable armor of Nina Libeskind, it really is an impressive bit of spinning straw into gold: released on probably the slowest New York news weekend of the year, and admitting there is pretty much no extant evidence, and asking for $800K. But willing to settle for $600K? That’s cheek.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Larry, that’s not why I called it the ‘Freedom Tower.’
Any hint that the creation of the Freedom Tower is (and maybe not even was) a collaboration was effectively erased by a holiday weekend report that Daniel Libeskind’s office had submitted a bill to Larry Silverstein for $800,000 for continuing design work after the his site plan ($2.25 million in fees) was completed. Silverstein countered with an offer of $125,000. Though the Libeskinds are unwilling to submit to arbitration (in the Post, the world ‘sue’ is bandied about pretty liberally), they do seem to be willing to use the Times as a non-binding agent, hinting they would be happy with $600,000. Silverstein is balking at the lack of adequate documentation, namely any timesheets whatsover, to which Libeskind’s office is responding by saying the value of his meeting time is hard to quantify (read: ‘I was busy buying my dowtown loft’). The Post cuts to the chase and calls it a ‘genuis fee,’ which is a more explicit derivative of how the branding people justify a cost of a logo as ‘value priced.’ Though this might be seen as chink in the formidable armor of Nina Libeskind, it really is an impressive bit of spinning straw into gold: released on probably the slowest New York news weekend of the year, and admitting there is pretty much no extant evidence, and asking for $800K. But willing to settle for $600K? That’s cheek.