Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn
The previous design was far superior as it had no parking and preserved 1 structural bay of depth on the existing 740 N Rush building, so different than a standard facadectomy.
The auto-centric minded people who also complain about traffic are the ones demanding these projects have more parking, and thus the proposal comes back with a podium. As BVictor mentioned, Reilly's office usually sees these proposals first and often forces changes before they are "ready for community input".
I'm betting coming back with a parking component and arguing including it drove up the cost is why we have a larger design on the table now.
|
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. The first SOM proposal (exactly how it was, not how it was but with a couple hundred ' extra, to all the weird overly height-obsessed forumers here) was so superior to this design.........in pretty much every way imaginable (and not just this design's ridiculous crown).....
I hope that you're right on the last part, Shawn - but that there's also sufficient blowback against the larger size and they then get the NIMBY's to accept the earlier proposal as-is!.....