- 46 -
induce sales of the benefited properties, is insufficient under
the developer line of cases. Although the record indicates that
the Bank was aware that construction of the Atrium would enhance
the value of the Bank's adjoining properties, we believe that the
basic purpose of the Bank in constructing the Atrium was not the
enhancement of the adjoining properties so as to induce sales of
those properties, but rather the resolution of certain design
issues and the enhancement of the Bank's image. Value
enhancement of the Bank's adjoining properties was simply a
beneficial consequence of that basic purpose.8
On August 24, 1979, when architectural plans for the Project
were presented to the Committee for the first time, construction
of the Atrium was proposed as a means of resolving two major
design issues: (1) counteracting the off-Broadway location of the
proposed tower and (2) creating a center consisting of the
proposed tower and the existing bank facilities. By September
1980, when construction of the proposed atrium was approved, the
Bank had the benefit of both the Harrison Price and Planning
Dynamics reports. Both reports recommended construction of the
proposed atrium based on three factors: (1) increased rental
8 It appears that petitioner would likely not dispute that
assertion; in its brief, petitioner states: “[A]lthough the
impetus for building the Atrium came from the construction of
1UBC (including the need for a `front door on Broadway'), the
Bank expected that 2UBC - the largest building to which the
Atrium is physically attached - would be the beneficiary of the
largest value increase.”
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011