Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT
|
I get what you're saying, but it's a shallow promise on many levels.
Architectural significance =/= height significance. Design and engineering are 90% of that discussion, especially at a time when 2000 ft is not a watershed moment. Not saying a 2000'er in NA
wouldn't be significant, just that there are a lot of ways to take that statement. I'm sure many Chicagoans have or will come to find 150 N Riverside significant simply because of its cantilevers.
Really, when it comes down to it, Related is not going to tack on 500-1000 extra feet if it just results in a net loss in the 10s/100s of millions on their margins. If they want 1400 feet and a unique design like that of the recent stilt concept for the site or something like Vista (if Vista wasn't already a thing) rather than 2000, you can't really say that they're hypocrites. Maybe they just have a different mindset on the architectural significance and fit for the site. Rest assured, I think 1400 would obviously still "fit" the site's prominence. Perhaps we should be more irked that Magellan didn't try to allocate more FAR/density to Site I on the other side of the river.