The Port Authority's Double Standard at the World Trade Center
By Todd Fine
The Port Authority’s agreement for American Express at 2 World Trade Center exposes the hypocrisy of its position on 5 World Trade Center. Revenue demands that have constrained affordable housing at Site 5 proved negotiable when a corporation wanted a different deal.
Site 5 was purchased with federal money and transferred to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), which has overseen its redevelopment process. That public history makes the site’s use and disposition a matter of public accountability, not simply a commercial transaction between agencies. Any evaluation of the Port’s revenue demands should therefore account for the federal investment that enabled LMDC to control and redevelop the property.
The Port has defended those demands by pointing to land surrendered for the September 11 Memorial and performing arts center. In 2021, official Justin Bernbach explained that Site 5 was supposed to compensate for commercial space forgone elsewhere. Even with residential development, the Port wanted compensation equivalent to an office building to support its capital plan (The Village Sun, October 9, 2021).
That argument shaped the competition for Site 5. At LMDC’s February 2021 board meeting, officials explained that financial terms carried 50 percent of the evaluation weight because of the obligation to compensate the Port for the land exchange. Community benefit was folded into a separate category covering program and design (LMDC meeting transcript).
On February 5, 2026, however, the Port approved reducing Tower 2 from the approximately 2.8 million square feet required by the 2010 Master Development Agreement to approximately 1.95 million. The original plan for 2 World Trade Center contemplated a tower of approximately 2.8 million square feet, consistent with the master development framework. Its resolution acknowledges a “concomitant reduction in expected ground rent to the Port Authority.” The agency gave up approximately 850,000 square feet, or 30 percent of the required development (Board minutes, pp. 14–17).
The old lease called for approximately $15.6 million annually during construction. Amex’s initial rent is $10.6 million, a reduction of roughly $5 million a year, or 32 percent. It rises to $21.2 million when the core and shell permit fit-out, with upward market-rent resets (February 2026 bond offering, p. 67; board approval, p. 15). These concessions follow substantial inflation: average U.S. consumer prices rose approximately 48 percent between 2010 and 2025 (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis CPI series).
The Port accepted lower expected revenue on land it retained for commercial development. Its claim that the memorial’s lost revenue must be recovered at Site 5 is therefore a policy choice. Invoking that loss to limit affordable housing while reducing established commercial obligations for the Amex deal is disingenuous, especially where Site 5 was acquired with federal funds and placed under LMDC’s control.
Libeskind’s “ascending spiral” of towers has provided the framework for the site’s skyline. The Foster design unveiled in 2006 called for Tower 2 to reach 1,254 feet at the roof and 1,350 feet including its spire. The Amex design is 1,226 feet tall, 124 feet below that earlier overall height, with substantially less floor space. The same willingness to revise development expectations should apply to 5 WTC. Its height should be reconsidered according to what would deliver the greatest community benefit (2006 tower design; Amex tower design).
The Port’s assurances about fair rent also deserve scrutiny. Its advisers’ assessment cannot be independently evaluated without the executed lease and underlying appraisals. Public investment matters to that calculation. The board identified $171 million in earlier site improvements to be reimbursed and authorized another $160 million in net construction costs, excluding certain other costs (Board minutes). The Port later reported $112 million in back rent and a separate $204 million construction-related contribution. Those receipts alone do not establish whether the public received a fair return on its expenditures (First-quarter 2026 financial statements, pp. 4–5).
According to The New York Times, Governor Kathy Hochul is advocating for a new RFP for 5 World Trade Center. The Washington Street Advocacy Group supports reopening the competition, with community benefit as the principal selection criterion. Proposals for 100 percent permanently affordable housing should receive serious consideration, including from nonprofit developers. The Port should adjust its ground-rent demands to make that possible. The Amex agreement has already demonstrated that earlier financial expectations can be revised when the agency wants a project to proceed. Because Site 5 was purchased with federal money and given to LMDC, its redevelopment should prioritize the public benefit that public investment was intended to serve.