It's not about looks but efficient use of land: Manhattan was (and still is) the financial capital of the world. It had the most valuable real estate in the world. Radio Row was a poor use of real estate.
Before the Chinese traded electronics in Shenzhen, they traded it in Hong Kong. Yes, as Hong Kong transformed into a financial center, it got rid of the electronics traders.
The Wikipedia article hints that it went through the courts. Probably the only legally recognised rights were of the property (real estate) owners and those rights didn't include using the sidewalk as a display area and blasting out announcements on loudspeakers.
So $30,000 in 1962 was probably very generous, but these business owners held the WTC project ransom by demanding unreasonable payouts.
The wikipedia article mentioned that it went to court.
The White House and Central Park are a poor use of real estate as well. Imagine how much money you could make if you developed it into a new Kowloon Walled City!
Besides, didn't the Twin Towers have a massive occupancy problem? I recall that being the reason why so many government entities were forced to move there...
> It's not about looks but efficient use of land
Right, confiscation from private owners to use it for erection of a building no one needs is a very efficient use of land. The project will require astronomical up front expenses, will stay vacant for almost 2 decades, and have endless problems until its last day (fires, terrorist acts, issues with the structure). But who cares, it's efficiency we are talking about.
> It had the most valuable real estate in the world. Radio Row was a poor use of real estate.
So why did they force a sale price on the people there?
If as finance people we believe in market forces they should have bought the stores out at market prices.
It's another heads-we-win-tails-you-lose situation.