The cynic in me is inclined to think that putting it at the corner and not set back was done for one or both of two reasons:
1. visibility of the office spaces
2. access issues near a busy intersection: the further you put the accesses from the corner, the easier things will be. That effectively forces the building location into the corner nearest the intersection.
From an urban design perspective, none of the upper floor units have any real access to the two streets; the stairs/elevators all dump out into the parking lot, so any employees who wished to walk to anywhere for lunch have to start in the parking lot. Kind of a depressing, really.
As of the beginning of May when that PDF was produced, it looks like most of the second floor units had already been sold whereas most of the first floor units - which have street access - were still for sale (although the second floor units are generally smaller, and the one ground floor unit that was sold was also the smallest of the ground floor units). That to me kind of indicates that the ground floor units should have been designed and marketed as something other than office space...
There is a certain irony in the way development is progressing generally: we're getting tall residential condo towers near and around mass transit stations while we are getting office blocks in the middle of nowhere. What good is having residential condos around transit when the employment destinations are increasingly in locations ill-served by transit? From a transit planning perspective, we're better off having tall office buildings around transit stations and people living all over since at least it is easier for transit to get someone to the rapid transit system from their residence than it is to get them from the rapid transit system to a distant place of employment.
Prev
Linear Mode
