Thoughts on design and urbanism from a roman face name.

A partial verdict was returned today in the insurance case filed by Larry Silverstein against the major insurers of the World Trade Center. Though deliberations continue in the case against Swiss Re, the largest insurer of the complex, in every other instance, the attacks were deemed a ‘single event.’ The result likely will be a settlement of $3.5 billion for Silverman, instead of the $7 billion he sought. With 7WTC going up without an anchor/name tenant, given the $12 billion estimate for rebuilding, much of which still is uncommitted, saying that this may have a dramatic impact on the ownership and development structure going forward would be an understatement. Silverman doesn’t have the cash, there are no tenants beside the Port Authority (and it’s not clear they are even committed). Hopefully this will lead to a new discussion on the value of the plans as they stand, and it certainly will lead to a lot of ugly manipulation of public funds to insure Dubya gets to cast the first stone come convention time.

UPDATE: The Money/CNN story cited was a little vague the details. NY1 has a better explanation. 12 companies were named in the suit and eight were “bound by a WilProp form, which classifies the attacks as one event.” Three will have to pay for two events, though they are the smallest firms named in the suit. The Swiss Re portion, being the largest, may still change the final award amount in the billions, but there aren’t any details I can find the specify the coverage fow which Swiss Re is liable.

UPDATE REDUX: I should always check the Times first. They lay out the numbers best: Silverstein has collected $1.9 billion ($1.3 billion net, less fees and carrying costs), stands to collect another $1.5 billion after the verdict yesterday, with between $2 billion and $4 billion pending the last verdict. Worst case scenario is $4.8 billion in net funds available. Some preimlimary budget numbers were listed, but it is not clear if these are allocations or driven by actual construction documents. Much is, of course, missing, including the following: the budget as outlined, includes the structures that will cover most of the site, but number is listed for site work (which will be substantial, particular security infrastructure). Excepting transit costs, it would seem that the primary leasholder would be responsible for most of the site improvement costs, and, if the future of the additional towers is in doubt (financially), should the site work include logisitics (parking, utilities, security) to accomodate the (eventual) expansion? Also, if Silverstein can’t build the full amount of space, will his lease be renegotiated? Will he be due back rent, or will that be a speculative cost to him? If it becomes clear that office space is highly untenable, how will the remaining slice of the slice be developed, and who designs it? Given the $200 million the city will be spending to demolish the Bankers Trust building and do site improvement for the bus garage, should this use be revisited with the possibility of more utilizing the (now) undeveloped portion?