Architect Daniel Libeskind, designer of the original plan for redevelopment of the World Trade Center site, filed a lawsuit Tuesday claiming site developer Larry Silverstein owes him more than $843,000 for creative services. (frm Newsday)
trust me david....skids doesnt do projects for under 6% fee[if 1 1/2% fee is your standard agreement, i have a garage that i am looking to get some good ideas for...can i ring you?] and clearly your action indicates you obviously will no longer be involved in the project ....right?
David, that 15% crap for concept design phase......that may be what the AIA tells you it should be but thats because we architects conviced the AIA in the 80's to publish those number so we could front load all our fees[and tell our clients 'its the standard']....perhaps your effort was maybe....30%[since you didnt do it all] of 5%[the real effort of SD] times 6% of $1.5 bil so maybe $1,350,000 is about right if my math is correct...
maybe you could work the fee multiples into some type of fractal representation and write a book?
But whereas the last dispute between Mr. Libeskind and Mr. Silverstein—over the design of the Freedom Tower—could at least be chalked up to a disagreement over aesthetics, this current dispute is about nothing more lofty than money. In that sense, however, it seems strikingly apt, rooted as it is in what promises to be the tallest monument to commerce ever constructed by man.
i like the part ...
"in a May 7 letter to Mr. Silverstein, Mr. Libeskind’s wife and business partner, Nina, charged that the developer’s refusal to compensate the Libes-kinds was a reprisal for their attempts to shrink and alter the building to fit into their master plan."
If the suit has a greater theme, however, it is that commerce has trumped planning, an assertion rarely heard from such a highly placed insider as Mr. Libeskind.
What I find really incredible about all this is that Daniel, as well as all the other achitects who participated in the master plan competition, accepted $10,000 each for their initial design work from the LMDC. After that bargain-basement deal, it's no surprise that Daniel is trying to recover some costs in court.
I wonder if that NYT article on Libeskind shrinking has anything to do with this. Its funny to think that this resent flurry of Daniel in the News, with him reassuring the public and himself that the design was not altered past the original master plan etc...etc... and then he slaps them with a lawsuit. high drama
$10k is unbelievable. r u sure? this didnt even handle postage.
when DL was at neocon last month, i found it very unusual that he continued to use the term 'the peoples design' v. 'bureacrats design' and seeing how much he played the press during the selection process, is this just DL being trying to play the press again? and really, its not about commerce v. planning...if DL had any informal agreement [sans contract] what he was to be paid, i am certain it would be honored. there is more to this story than is coming out in the press i think.
Crains NY reports DL was paid $2.25 Mil for his master plan services which i think was the focus of the original comp?
maybe as the master plan services were running parrell to the collaboration with SKIDs, DL's billing for master plan was paid by LMDC and the skids collaboration was paid by silverstein, perhaps silverstein is resonably assumming that DL may be doing a bit of double-dipping here and the request for time back up, was to make sure he didnt bill twice for the same services. as an owner it may be hard to draw a line between the two with the perspective that perhaps his collaboration with skids was to inform the master plan efforts.
TED - I'm sorry - I take that back... $10,000 is so little it's ridiculous. It was the huge sum of ... $40.000 (!) that each of the 9 finalists were given. And that's when Libeskind came up with the bones of his scheme. Check this out: http://www.blacktable.com/wtc030129.htm
and read why Frank Gehry refused to partake:
""In a New York Times Magazine interview from Jan. 5, Frank Gehry, arguably the greatest living American architect, explained that the $40,000 payment he would have received for offering his own World Trade Center proposal wasn't enough to get the creative juices flowing. Even though the WTC rebuild is a chance-of-a-lifetime opportunity for an architect to put a stamp on one of the world's largest cities, Gehry put his pimp hand down.
"I was invited to be on one of the teams, but I found it demeaning that the agency paid only $40,000 for all that work. I can understand why the kids did it, but why would people my age do it?" said Gehry. "When you're only paid $40,000, you're treated as if that is your worth." ""
YES frank!! $40k is so insulting. i guess we architects are really stupid. i am not sure i would call frank 'the greatest', but certainly 'one of the greatest'.
i would have like to see what a Gehry 'commercial' solution would have looked like....would his tower been sculpture?
i'm going to guess the models alone cost some $200k. professional renderings of the scale they wanted -- $30k each easily ....plus all the rest of the bits. maybe $500k+ per architect team and thats assumes all design consultants work for naught. even the WTC memorial comp i think had a bigger honorarium i think [they knew the young guns couldnt fork big bucks for what they asked].
you can [i think] ride off the phyical pieces such as models if they comp group set it up right as an 'in-kind' donation, but not the people cost.
for DL, didnt he have some high profile PR group putting him out there when it was DLS and THINK? add anothe $100k at least.
i have worked on proposals where we have blown $150k easy on just the paper -- no design. put a invited design competition [there are many unpaid ones, or virtually unpaid, that have come out of china] and the firm can drop $200k in a blink of the eye.
in addition, Eisenman responded to Gehry's criticism, kind of along the lines of "how can anyone not do this...it's a duty and not just a commission"...something vaguely sentimental and patriotic...try telling that to DL now.
looking at that Eisemann proposal.... clearly $40k 'wasn't enough to get the creative juices flowing' for him either. perhaps the scheme reflects artistic compromise [or honorarium split] of the 4 designers. the comment from the black table
'Plus, it’s impossible not to think of an enormous Whoopi Goldberg head in that center square, and that’s more horrifying than anything Al Qaeda could ever pull off.'
it really says it all but not a comment you about to read in the best muschamp NYT review.
Jul 14, 04 4:16 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
12 Comments
note to DL from TED.....
trust me david....skids doesnt do projects for under 6% fee[if 1 1/2% fee is your standard agreement, i have a garage that i am looking to get some good ideas for...can i ring you?] and clearly your action indicates you obviously will no longer be involved in the project ....right?
love ya! TED
additional note to DL for TED....
David, that 15% crap for concept design phase......that may be what the AIA tells you it should be but thats because we architects conviced the AIA in the 80's to publish those number so we could front load all our fees[and tell our clients 'its the standard']....perhaps your effort was maybe....30%[since you didnt do it all] of 5%[the real effort of SD] times 6% of $1.5 bil so maybe $1,350,000 is about right if my math is correct...
maybe you could work the fee multiples into some type of fractal representation and write a book?
More on this from the NY Observer.
i like the part ...
"in a May 7 letter to Mr. Silverstein, Mr. Libeskind’s wife and business partner, Nina, charged that the developer’s refusal to compensate the Libes-kinds was a reprisal for their attempts to shrink and alter the building to fit into their master plan."
thats a new one. sounds like a real cat fight
metamechanic started discussion thread on this topic... Silverstein, Libeskind, Developers, and fees
If the suit has a greater theme, however, it is that commerce has trumped planning, an assertion rarely heard from such a highly placed insider as Mr. Libeskind.
- David Dunlap, NYTimes
What I find really incredible about all this is that Daniel, as well as all the other achitects who participated in the master plan competition, accepted $10,000 each for their initial design work from the LMDC. After that bargain-basement deal, it's no surprise that Daniel is trying to recover some costs in court.
I wonder if that NYT article on Libeskind shrinking has anything to do with this. Its funny to think that this resent flurry of Daniel in the News, with him reassuring the public and himself that the design was not altered past the original master plan etc...etc... and then he slaps them with a lawsuit. high drama
$10k is unbelievable. r u sure? this didnt even handle postage.
when DL was at neocon last month, i found it very unusual that he continued to use the term 'the peoples design' v. 'bureacrats design' and seeing how much he played the press during the selection process, is this just DL being trying to play the press again? and really, its not about commerce v. planning...if DL had any informal agreement [sans contract] what he was to be paid, i am certain it would be honored. there is more to this story than is coming out in the press i think.
Crains NY reports DL was paid $2.25 Mil for his master plan services which i think was the focus of the original comp?
silversteins offer is so low that it is insulting
maybe as the master plan services were running parrell to the collaboration with SKIDs, DL's billing for master plan was paid by LMDC and the skids collaboration was paid by silverstein, perhaps silverstein is resonably assumming that DL may be doing a bit of double-dipping here and the request for time back up, was to make sure he didnt bill twice for the same services. as an owner it may be hard to draw a line between the two with the perspective that perhaps his collaboration with skids was to inform the master plan efforts.
maybe he should consider silversteins offer....
TED - I'm sorry - I take that back... $10,000 is so little it's ridiculous. It was the huge sum of ... $40.000 (!) that each of the 9 finalists were given. And that's when Libeskind came up with the bones of his scheme. Check this out:
http://www.blacktable.com/wtc030129.htm
and read why Frank Gehry refused to partake:
""In a New York Times Magazine interview from Jan. 5, Frank Gehry, arguably the greatest living American architect, explained that the $40,000 payment he would have received for offering his own World Trade Center proposal wasn't enough to get the creative juices flowing. Even though the WTC rebuild is a chance-of-a-lifetime opportunity for an architect to put a stamp on one of the world's largest cities, Gehry put his pimp hand down.
"I was invited to be on one of the teams, but I found it demeaning that the agency paid only $40,000 for all that work. I can understand why the kids did it, but why would people my age do it?" said Gehry. "When you're only paid $40,000, you're treated as if that is your worth." ""
YES frank!! $40k is so insulting. i guess we architects are really stupid. i am not sure i would call frank 'the greatest', but certainly 'one of the greatest'.
i would have like to see what a Gehry 'commercial' solution would have looked like....would his tower been sculpture?
i'm going to guess the models alone cost some $200k. professional renderings of the scale they wanted -- $30k each easily ....plus all the rest of the bits. maybe $500k+ per architect team and thats assumes all design consultants work for naught. even the WTC memorial comp i think had a bigger honorarium i think [they knew the young guns couldnt fork big bucks for what they asked].
you can [i think] ride off the phyical pieces such as models if they comp group set it up right as an 'in-kind' donation, but not the people cost.
for DL, didnt he have some high profile PR group putting him out there when it was DLS and THINK? add anothe $100k at least.
i have worked on proposals where we have blown $150k easy on just the paper -- no design. put a invited design competition [there are many unpaid ones, or virtually unpaid, that have come out of china] and the firm can drop $200k in a blink of the eye.
sad. we are suckers.
in addition, Eisenman responded to Gehry's criticism, kind of along the lines of "how can anyone not do this...it's a duty and not just a commission"...something vaguely sentimental and patriotic...try telling that to DL now.
looking at that Eisemann proposal.... clearly $40k 'wasn't enough to get the creative juices flowing' for him either. perhaps the scheme reflects artistic compromise [or honorarium split] of the 4 designers. the comment from the black table
'Plus, it’s impossible not to think of an enormous Whoopi Goldberg head in that center square, and that’s more horrifying than anything Al Qaeda could ever pull off.'
it really says it all but not a comment you about to read in the best muschamp NYT review.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.