Negotiating the Mega-Rebuilding Deal at the World Trade: Adjacent Property Owners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I will be very brief because I am a peripheral participant in this meeting. The company with which I am connected, Brookfield, owns property near the site. We were the third highest bidder to take over the World Trade Center in a deal that was completed in 2001. If our bid had been slightly higher and we had won the contract, then my experience would have been different. However, as it stands, I am peripheral participant. My primary connection is with Alex Garvin, my college classmate and friend for almost fifty years, and Meredith Kane, one of my favorite students. I have a number of favorite students, but she is on that list.\nBrookfield, a large Canadian company, owns One Liberty Plaza, a building next door to the World Trade Center site. The law firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton has its office in that building.However, Brookfield also owns the four World Financial Center buildings, which were designed by Cesar Pelli and are representative of the financial center buildings that are constructed today. At the time the World Trade Center was attacked, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and the Wall Street Journal were in those buildings. This is Wall Street property; therefore, we bid to become the holder of the ninety-nine year interest in the World Trade Center. However, Vornado and Mr. Silverstein bid more. As a result, we had been sitting there on the edge. Then the events of September 11th occurred resulting in substantial damage to our buildings as well as to the World Trade Center.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".