Architect claims NY’s One World Trade Center stole his design


NEW YORK A Korean-born designer on Wednesday sued a vital pattern organisation over a pattern of Manhattan’s One World Trade Center, claiming that a building bears a “striking similarity” to a building he designed in 1999 while in connoisseur school.

Jeehoon Park indicted Skidmore, Owings Merrill of secretly claiming pattern credit for a 104-story One World Trade Center, whose 1,776-foot (541 m) tallness including a spire creates it a Western Hemisphere’s tallest building.

Now boss of Qube Architecture LLC in Suwanee, Georgia, Park pronounced in a lawsuit, filed in sovereign justice in Manhattan, that One World Trade Center, that non-stop in Nov 2014, copies his 122-story “Cityfront ’99,” whose cross-sections also underline slight honest and inverted triangle shapes.

Park, a naturalized U.S. citizen, pronounced he purebred Cityfront ’99 with a U.S. Copyright Office on May 9.

He is seeking vague damages, including for purported mistreat to his architectural practice, and credit for a pattern he pronounced desirous One World Trade Center.

Other defendants embody entities tranquil by a Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, that grown a property, and building executive Tishman Construction Co.

Skidmore did not immediately respond to a ask for comment. Spokesmen for a Port Authority and Tishman declined to comment.

Park, who perceived an engineering grade in Seoul, pronounced he combined Cityfront ’99 while removing his master’s grade in pattern from a Illinois Institute of Technology.

He pronounced Skidmore had entrance to a pattern by an associate partner who was one of his topic advisers, and by a arrangement in a school’s lobby.

Park also pronounced Cityfront ’99 seemed in a stage from a 2006 film “The Lake House,” starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, that was filmed in a run of a Chicago building where Skidmore had an office.

“He only wants to be treated fairly,” Dan Kent, a counsel for Park, said.

“Our customer honestly didn’t know what his authorised rights were until he came to us,” Kent added. “We trust we are good within any principle of limitations, and that a prejudicial control is ongoing.”

The box is Park v Skidmore, Owings Merrill LLP et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 17-04473.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler)


About Author

Leave A Reply